A Lancashire-based toy distributor and a builder have been sentenced
after a worker plunged to his death through a warehouse roof. Craig
Gray, 39, from Fleetwood, had been helping to clear debris from the roof
when he fell nine metres through a fragile plastic panel at Halsall
Toys Europe Ltd on 19 July 2012.
The company and builder David
Plant were both prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on
20 March 2015, after an investigation found no safety measures had been
put in place to make sure the work could be carried out safely. Preston
Crown Court heard debris had been washing down the roof and into the
gutters, causing them to overflow into the warehouse below. Halsall Toys
had arranged with Mr Plant, an unemployed builder, for the roof
cleaning work to be done, but did not carry out any checks to make sure
he was competent.
Mr Plant and Craig Gray climbed onto the roof,
which covers 36,000 square feet, without any preparation work or
planning having taken place in advance. They failed to use harnesses or
any other equipment to keep them safe. The men were four days into the
project when Mr Gray stood on one of the clear panels, designed to let
in light, which gave way sending him nine metres to the concrete floor
below. He died at the scene.
Halsall Toys Europe Ltd pleaded
guilty to a single breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
by failing to ensure the safety of Mr Gray. The company, of Copse Road
in Fleetwood, was fined £200,000 and ordered to pay £10,483 towards the
cost of the prosecution.
David Plant, 60, of Shetland Road in
Blackpool, was given a 6 month prison sentence, suspended for 12 months,
after being found guilty of a breach of the Work at Height Regulations
2005 by failing to make sure the work was carried out safely.
Speaking
after the hearing, HSE Inspector Allen Shute said: “Craig Gray should
never have been allowed onto the warehouse roof without being given
suitable training and equipment, but both Halsall Toys and David Plant
allowed his life to be put in danger. Halsall Toys hired Mr Plant to
carry out the work despite him not having any previous experience of
working on industrial roofs. The firm should have carried out checks to
make sure the work would be carried out safely. Mr Plant also had a
legal duty to make sure the right equipment was used for the job,
whether it was using harnesses or simply placing covers over the fragile
roof panels to remove the risk of them collapsing.”
CRS
Managing Director, Stephen Asbury said “Sadly incidents of workers
falling through warehouse roofs are all too common, and it’s vital firms
do more to make sure this kind of work is carried out safely and by
competent people.”
Monday, 13 April 2015
South Yorkshire firm labelled a 'serial safety offender'
A Rotherham-based metals business has been sentenced after it
repeatedly risked workers’ lives by making them use dangerous machines –
notching up a shocking 31 enforcement notices for safety breaches in
just three months.
Sheffield Crown Court was told on 19 March 2015 that Meadowbank Vac Alloys was a serial safety offender. It allowed employees to operate vehicles and plant with category ‘A’ defects, the highest possible level meaning ’immediately dangerous’, and continued to keep the machines in use even after being specifically prohibited from doing so by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
Twenty enforcement notices were served by HSE at the end of May 2012 after a visit by inspectors to the firm’s site in Harrison Street. The visit was prompted by a complaint voicing concern about the condition of the firm’s vehicles. These notices covered a multitude of safety and health risks ranging from improvements needed to a variety of plant and lifting machines to the provision of basic welfare facilities for staff. The court heard that there were a further four visits by HSE between then and early August when additional enforcement notices were issued. These included seven which banned use of three forklift trucks, three mechanical grabs and a loading shovel that had no brakes. All had category A defects, identified by an independent engineer.
Although numerous extensions of time were granted by HSE to Meadowbank Vac Alloys to comply with the enforcement notices, the company continually failed to take adequate action and workers had to operate the defective machines. HSE identified that on two occasions in July and August, prohibited machines were still being used. None of the defects had been rectified and again the company director was informed specifically what was needed for the notices to be complied with. During the last inspection, in October 2012, HSE found the dangerous loading shovel still in use and with some 80 hours’ working time clocked up when it should have been idle.
In total, 31 notices were served between 29 May and Aug 2012 identifying 57 safety breaches.
Meadowbank Vac Alloys, of Harrison Road, Rotherham, was fined a total of £36,000 and ordered to pay £36,000 toward prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a single breach of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998; and multiple breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 974, three relating to Prohibition Notices and two for offences of non-compliance with Improvement Notices.
After the hearing, investigating HSE inspector Denise Fotheringham said: “Meadowbank Vac Alloys displayed a reckless disregard for the safety of its employees and a persistent contempt for the legal notices issued requiring the firm to bring equipment to an acceptable standard. HSE exercised protracted patience with the company and was in regular contact with the director to ensure what was needed to comply was clear, unambiguous and fully understood. Despite being given ample opportunity, Meadowbank chose to ignore their responsibilities; put workers in danger on a daily basis; defy the law and turn a deaf ear to information, advice and guidance conveyed by inspectors and an independent engineer.”
CRS believes that HSE regulators should also enforce the current law requiring organisations to have access to competent health and safety advice, and that ignoring such advice should also be regarded as a material breach of health and safety requirements, and prosecuted and where necessary sentenced accordingly. Our consultants are recognised by OSHCR, the HSE register of competent health and safety consultants.
For more information on the requirements for companies, see http://www.hse.gov.uk/business/competent-advice.htm
Sheffield Crown Court was told on 19 March 2015 that Meadowbank Vac Alloys was a serial safety offender. It allowed employees to operate vehicles and plant with category ‘A’ defects, the highest possible level meaning ’immediately dangerous’, and continued to keep the machines in use even after being specifically prohibited from doing so by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
Twenty enforcement notices were served by HSE at the end of May 2012 after a visit by inspectors to the firm’s site in Harrison Street. The visit was prompted by a complaint voicing concern about the condition of the firm’s vehicles. These notices covered a multitude of safety and health risks ranging from improvements needed to a variety of plant and lifting machines to the provision of basic welfare facilities for staff. The court heard that there were a further four visits by HSE between then and early August when additional enforcement notices were issued. These included seven which banned use of three forklift trucks, three mechanical grabs and a loading shovel that had no brakes. All had category A defects, identified by an independent engineer.
Although numerous extensions of time were granted by HSE to Meadowbank Vac Alloys to comply with the enforcement notices, the company continually failed to take adequate action and workers had to operate the defective machines. HSE identified that on two occasions in July and August, prohibited machines were still being used. None of the defects had been rectified and again the company director was informed specifically what was needed for the notices to be complied with. During the last inspection, in October 2012, HSE found the dangerous loading shovel still in use and with some 80 hours’ working time clocked up when it should have been idle.
In total, 31 notices were served between 29 May and Aug 2012 identifying 57 safety breaches.
Meadowbank Vac Alloys, of Harrison Road, Rotherham, was fined a total of £36,000 and ordered to pay £36,000 toward prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a single breach of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998; and multiple breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 974, three relating to Prohibition Notices and two for offences of non-compliance with Improvement Notices.
After the hearing, investigating HSE inspector Denise Fotheringham said: “Meadowbank Vac Alloys displayed a reckless disregard for the safety of its employees and a persistent contempt for the legal notices issued requiring the firm to bring equipment to an acceptable standard. HSE exercised protracted patience with the company and was in regular contact with the director to ensure what was needed to comply was clear, unambiguous and fully understood. Despite being given ample opportunity, Meadowbank chose to ignore their responsibilities; put workers in danger on a daily basis; defy the law and turn a deaf ear to information, advice and guidance conveyed by inspectors and an independent engineer.”
CRS believes that HSE regulators should also enforce the current law requiring organisations to have access to competent health and safety advice, and that ignoring such advice should also be regarded as a material breach of health and safety requirements, and prosecuted and where necessary sentenced accordingly. Our consultants are recognised by OSHCR, the HSE register of competent health and safety consultants.
For more information on the requirements for companies, see http://www.hse.gov.uk/business/competent-advice.htm
Friday, 10 April 2015
Kent boys' school fined £10K plus costs over pupil's head injuries
The governors of a boys’ school in Tonbridge have been prosecuted
after a 14-year-old pupil was severely injured when he was hit by a shot
put thrown by another boy. The incident happened during a routine
multi-sport PE lesson at The Judd School in Tonbridge on 20 June 2014.
The pupil had left a triple jump area and was standing on the edge of
the shot put landing zone to check a friend’s throw when he was struck
on the back of his head by a shot. The pupil suffered life-threatening
injuries and needed emergency brain surgery on a fractured skull. He has
now returned to school but his injury has resulted in a permanent
indentation at the base of his skull.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigated and identified the school had not adopted measures in its own risk assessment, and PE guidance on multi-event lessons had not been followed.
Sevenoaks Magistrates were told on 24 March 2015 that there were 24 boys in the lesson, divided into six groups and taking part in hurdles, long jump, triple jump, javelin, discus and shot put. It was a lesson format used regularly at The Judd School and the pupils had participated in similar lessons in previous years. The six sports were spread across the field but the end of the landing zone for the shot put was only about three metres from the end of the triple jump sand pit, where the 14-year-old was competing. When the whistle blew to mark the end of the session, he left the triple jump and went to the shot put to see how far his friend had thrown. At the same time, another pupil was completing his throw, turning as he did so he was facing away from the zone. The shot hit the pupil on the back of the head, causing a severely fractured skull and internal swelling. He was in hospital for nearly a month but was able to return to school the following term.
The court heard the teenager is no longer able to take part in some contact sports and may suffer longer-term issues.
HSE found the school had carried out a risk assessment for PE lessons. However, although it had referenced the guidance by the Association for Physical Education (APE), it did not follow their recommendation that such lessons be restricted to a maximum of four sports with only one to be a throwing event. The school’s inclusion of six sports with three throwing events, had significantly increased the risks to pupils, as had the proximity of the triple jump pit to the shot put landing zone.
The Governing Body of The Judd School, Tonbridge, Kent, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £1,375 in costs after admitting a breach of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Magistrates agreed with HSE that the safety breach had been ‘substantial’.
After the hearing, HSE inspector Kevin Golding said: “By not adopting the measures identified in their own risk assessment, The Judd School put pupils at serious risk leading to a 14-year-old boy being struck by a shot put and suffering life-threatening injuries. It was a horrifying incident for him and his family and, of course, the rest of the pupils and the school itself. While he is thankfully back at school, he will have to live with the consequences of the incident for the rest of his life. It is vitally important that schools review their risk assessments for all PE lessons, but in particular for multi-sports lessons, to check that they are safe.”
CRS assists schools with health and safety risks assessments, and could have helped ensure that APE guidance was noted and incorporated into the planning of lessons. Contact CRS at 01283 509175 for more information, or to obtain a free copy of the APE guidance.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigated and identified the school had not adopted measures in its own risk assessment, and PE guidance on multi-event lessons had not been followed.
Sevenoaks Magistrates were told on 24 March 2015 that there were 24 boys in the lesson, divided into six groups and taking part in hurdles, long jump, triple jump, javelin, discus and shot put. It was a lesson format used regularly at The Judd School and the pupils had participated in similar lessons in previous years. The six sports were spread across the field but the end of the landing zone for the shot put was only about three metres from the end of the triple jump sand pit, where the 14-year-old was competing. When the whistle blew to mark the end of the session, he left the triple jump and went to the shot put to see how far his friend had thrown. At the same time, another pupil was completing his throw, turning as he did so he was facing away from the zone. The shot hit the pupil on the back of the head, causing a severely fractured skull and internal swelling. He was in hospital for nearly a month but was able to return to school the following term.
The court heard the teenager is no longer able to take part in some contact sports and may suffer longer-term issues.
HSE found the school had carried out a risk assessment for PE lessons. However, although it had referenced the guidance by the Association for Physical Education (APE), it did not follow their recommendation that such lessons be restricted to a maximum of four sports with only one to be a throwing event. The school’s inclusion of six sports with three throwing events, had significantly increased the risks to pupils, as had the proximity of the triple jump pit to the shot put landing zone.
The Governing Body of The Judd School, Tonbridge, Kent, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £1,375 in costs after admitting a breach of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Magistrates agreed with HSE that the safety breach had been ‘substantial’.
After the hearing, HSE inspector Kevin Golding said: “By not adopting the measures identified in their own risk assessment, The Judd School put pupils at serious risk leading to a 14-year-old boy being struck by a shot put and suffering life-threatening injuries. It was a horrifying incident for him and his family and, of course, the rest of the pupils and the school itself. While he is thankfully back at school, he will have to live with the consequences of the incident for the rest of his life. It is vitally important that schools review their risk assessments for all PE lessons, but in particular for multi-sports lessons, to check that they are safe.”
CRS assists schools with health and safety risks assessments, and could have helped ensure that APE guidance was noted and incorporated into the planning of lessons. Contact CRS at 01283 509175 for more information, or to obtain a free copy of the APE guidance.
Farmer fined over £20K after cows cause walker's life-threatening injuries
A farmer has been prosecuted after a walker sustained
life-threatening injuries when she was trampled by cows while walking on
a public footpath. Emma Smith, 40, from St Martin, near Helston was
walking on the path at Well Field, Nance Farm, in the village on 18 June
2013 when she was trampled by the cows. She managed to get to a nearby
property from where she was rushed to hospital.
Farmer Jonathan Bryant appeared before Truro Magistrates Court on 24 March 2015 following an investigation into the incident by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
The court heard Ms Smith suffered punctured lungs, broken ribs and spinal and facial fractures. She was also left with deep cuts, wrist fractures and extensive bruising to her face and body. She spent five weeks in critical care and nine weeks in hospital. The HSE investigation found that the path was well used by local people but Mr Bryant had not assessed the risk to members of the public from putting cows with calves in the field.
Mr Bryant, of Swome Farm, St Martin, pleaded guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £8,885 in costs.
HSE Inspector Georgina Speake, speaking after the hearing, said: “Emma has been left with permanent injuries and was very fortunate not to have been killed in this totally avoidable incident. Cows with calves are naturally protective and can see people as a threat. Farmers must be aware of the risks to people who are entitled to use a public footpath. Farmers and landowners should consider how this risk can be reduced such as using fencing, signs, temporary bypasses or moving cows with calves away from fields with public rights of way.”
CRS says that farmers need competent health and safety advice too. Even though they are often family businesses, they often have full or part-time employees too and this makes them employers subject to the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act. And as can be seen in this case, the public can also be impacted by their acts and omissions. We urge farmers to contact CRS for a discussion about health and safety, and how we can help you to protect your family, employees and the public – 01283 509175 or advice@crsrisk.com.
Farmer Jonathan Bryant appeared before Truro Magistrates Court on 24 March 2015 following an investigation into the incident by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
The court heard Ms Smith suffered punctured lungs, broken ribs and spinal and facial fractures. She was also left with deep cuts, wrist fractures and extensive bruising to her face and body. She spent five weeks in critical care and nine weeks in hospital. The HSE investigation found that the path was well used by local people but Mr Bryant had not assessed the risk to members of the public from putting cows with calves in the field.
Mr Bryant, of Swome Farm, St Martin, pleaded guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £8,885 in costs.
HSE Inspector Georgina Speake, speaking after the hearing, said: “Emma has been left with permanent injuries and was very fortunate not to have been killed in this totally avoidable incident. Cows with calves are naturally protective and can see people as a threat. Farmers must be aware of the risks to people who are entitled to use a public footpath. Farmers and landowners should consider how this risk can be reduced such as using fencing, signs, temporary bypasses or moving cows with calves away from fields with public rights of way.”
CRS says that farmers need competent health and safety advice too. Even though they are often family businesses, they often have full or part-time employees too and this makes them employers subject to the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act. And as can be seen in this case, the public can also be impacted by their acts and omissions. We urge farmers to contact CRS for a discussion about health and safety, and how we can help you to protect your family, employees and the public – 01283 509175 or advice@crsrisk.com.
Thursday, 9 April 2015
Bedfordshire care home owner fined £335K following death of resident
A healthcare firm and its director have been ordered to pay more than
£335,000 in fines and costs after a 100 year-old resident died from
injuries she sustained in a fall from a hoist at a former Bedfordshire
care home. May Ward, who previously lived in Harlington, Bedfordshire,
was being moved by carers at Meppershall Care Home, on Shefford Road,
Meppershall, when the incident occurred on 28 August 2010.
The owners of the nursing home, GA Projects Limited, and its director, Mohammed Zarook, were both sentenced on 27 March 2015 after an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) established that her death could have been prevented had a better system for handling and moving residents, supported by appropriate staff training, been in place.
Luton Crown Court heard that Mrs Ward fell on 27 August 2010 as she was being moved by two carers between a chair and a bed using a hoist. She suffered multiple fractures when she hit the floor, including her skull, hip and knee, and died at Lister hospital in Stevenage the following day as a result of her injuries.
HSE established that her two carers had been employed by GA Projects for less than a year at the time of the incident. The sling used to move Mrs Ward was very complicated to fit correctly and the carers were given no training in how to use the sling safely. The sling was also not the one recommended by Central Bedfordshire Council as being suitable for Mrs Ward’s medical conditions. Mrs Ward was therefore not securely positioned within the sling and when she moved herself forwards, she fell out, hitting the floor.
The court was told that there was a history of serious safety breaches at Meppershall Care Home. HSE had served five Improvement Notices between October and December 2010 relating to deficiencies in resident handling, risk assessment, other risks to residents and a lack of competent health and safety advice.
Inspectors uncovered evidence that this was not the first of this type of incident at the home, with another resident fracturing a tibia and fibula after falling whilst being moved from her wheelchair to her armchair in September 2009. This incident had not been reported to HSE and was only discovered when HSE inspectors visited the home after Mrs Ward’s fatal fall.
At the time of May Ward’s death, GA Projects Limited owned three care homes including the one at Meppershall. Despite having no knowledge or experience of running care homes, Mr Zarook proceeded to take vulnerable residents into his three care homes. However, there was no evidence that he had taken steps to fulfil his health and safety obligations through the provision of training, and the management of the risks most commonly associated with the care industry, including resident handling.
In addition, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) had carried out inspections at the home on several occasions prior to Mrs Ward’s death that resulted in ‘poor’ or ‘adequate’ ratings. Meppershall Care Home was closed in July 2013 following concerns raised by CQC during a further inspection.
GA Projects Ltd, of Crompton Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £50,000 and ordered to pay costs of £36,992.24.
Mohammed Zarook, of Sauncey Wood, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He was fined £150,000 and ordered to pay costs of £100,000.
Speaking after the hearing HSE Inspector Emma Page, said: “Mrs Ward’s death was a wholly preventable tragedy caused by unacceptable management failings on the part of GA Projects Ltd and Mr Zarook. They put vulnerable residents at the care home at unnecessary risk. Working in a care home is a specialised job, which involves dealing with vulnerable people. Care homes must ensure that they have the correct training in place for all their employees, and that they work to adequately assess and mitigate all possible risks, so far as is reasonably practicable. Moving and handling is a particularly important issue in the healthcare sector and every year vulnerable people suffer injuries caused by poor moving and handling practice.”
For guidance and information on moving and handling in health and social care, and managing health and safety more generally, contact Henderson Risk Management at advice@crsrisk.com. We’re specialist advisers on health and safety to the care home sector, with current clients across the UK.
The owners of the nursing home, GA Projects Limited, and its director, Mohammed Zarook, were both sentenced on 27 March 2015 after an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) established that her death could have been prevented had a better system for handling and moving residents, supported by appropriate staff training, been in place.
Luton Crown Court heard that Mrs Ward fell on 27 August 2010 as she was being moved by two carers between a chair and a bed using a hoist. She suffered multiple fractures when she hit the floor, including her skull, hip and knee, and died at Lister hospital in Stevenage the following day as a result of her injuries.
HSE established that her two carers had been employed by GA Projects for less than a year at the time of the incident. The sling used to move Mrs Ward was very complicated to fit correctly and the carers were given no training in how to use the sling safely. The sling was also not the one recommended by Central Bedfordshire Council as being suitable for Mrs Ward’s medical conditions. Mrs Ward was therefore not securely positioned within the sling and when she moved herself forwards, she fell out, hitting the floor.
The court was told that there was a history of serious safety breaches at Meppershall Care Home. HSE had served five Improvement Notices between October and December 2010 relating to deficiencies in resident handling, risk assessment, other risks to residents and a lack of competent health and safety advice.
Inspectors uncovered evidence that this was not the first of this type of incident at the home, with another resident fracturing a tibia and fibula after falling whilst being moved from her wheelchair to her armchair in September 2009. This incident had not been reported to HSE and was only discovered when HSE inspectors visited the home after Mrs Ward’s fatal fall.
At the time of May Ward’s death, GA Projects Limited owned three care homes including the one at Meppershall. Despite having no knowledge or experience of running care homes, Mr Zarook proceeded to take vulnerable residents into his three care homes. However, there was no evidence that he had taken steps to fulfil his health and safety obligations through the provision of training, and the management of the risks most commonly associated with the care industry, including resident handling.
In addition, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) had carried out inspections at the home on several occasions prior to Mrs Ward’s death that resulted in ‘poor’ or ‘adequate’ ratings. Meppershall Care Home was closed in July 2013 following concerns raised by CQC during a further inspection.
GA Projects Ltd, of Crompton Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £50,000 and ordered to pay costs of £36,992.24.
Mohammed Zarook, of Sauncey Wood, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He was fined £150,000 and ordered to pay costs of £100,000.
Speaking after the hearing HSE Inspector Emma Page, said: “Mrs Ward’s death was a wholly preventable tragedy caused by unacceptable management failings on the part of GA Projects Ltd and Mr Zarook. They put vulnerable residents at the care home at unnecessary risk. Working in a care home is a specialised job, which involves dealing with vulnerable people. Care homes must ensure that they have the correct training in place for all their employees, and that they work to adequately assess and mitigate all possible risks, so far as is reasonably practicable. Moving and handling is a particularly important issue in the healthcare sector and every year vulnerable people suffer injuries caused by poor moving and handling practice.”
For guidance and information on moving and handling in health and social care, and managing health and safety more generally, contact Henderson Risk Management at advice@crsrisk.com. We’re specialist advisers on health and safety to the care home sector, with current clients across the UK.
Wednesday, 8 April 2015
The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015
The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015) came into force in Great Britain on 6 April 2015.
Whatever your role in construction, CDM aims to improve health and safety in the industry by helping you to:
HSE has published Legal Series guidance that supports CDM 2015 and explains it in more detail.
NEBOSH Combined Construction/General Certificate course
Whatever your role in construction, CDM aims to improve health and safety in the industry by helping you to:
- sensibly plan the work so the risks involved are managed from start to finish
- have the right people for the right job at the right time
- cooperate and coordinate your work with others
- have the right information about the risks and how they are being managed
- communicate this information effectively to those who need to know
- consult and engage with workers about the risks and how they are being managed
HSE has published Legal Series guidance that supports CDM 2015 and explains it in more detail.
NEBOSH Combined Construction/General Certificate course
Tuesday, 7 April 2015
Road construction firms sentenced after road worker loses arm
Three construction firms have been ordered to pay over £400,000 in
fines and costs for serious safety failings, after a worker lost his arm
when it became trapped in poorly-guarded machinery during a road
surfacing operation in Hertfordshire.
The 53-year old road worker was preparing a chip spreader – a machine used to scatter stone chips on asphalt – for resurfacing works on the A1001 in Hatfield when his left arm became caught in the machine’s rotating auger, causing serious injuries.
The highly-experienced worker, from Rushden, Northamptonshire who does not wish to be named, had to have his arm amputated shortly after the incident and has been unable to return to work since.
The incident, on 8 March 2012, was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which prosecuted Amey LG Ltd, Lafarge Aggregates Ltd (acting as Amey Lafarge, a joint venture in charge of the operation) and Ashmac Construction Ltd, who provided workers to the joint venture, for multiple safety breaches at Watford Magistrates’ Court.
The court was told (25 March), in order to prepare the chip spreader for use, the worker placed on the site by Ashmac Construction Ltd started the machine and the rotation of its internal auger. During the operation of setting the machine up for use his arm became entangled in dangerous moving parts.
HSE’s investigation revealed a series of safety failings on the part of all three companies.
HSE found the worker, who was not formally trained in the use of the spreader, and his colleagues were only given one evening to familiarise themselves with the machine by Amey Lafarge when they started work on site six months before the incident.
Amey Lafarge did not give the workers any instruction or training in how to operate the machine safely, including how to secure guards, nor were they given a copy of the operator’s manual for the machine. In addition, there was no safe system of work in place to ensure that the machine was set up and operated properly and that its use was restricted to those who were trained.
The Amey Lafarge did have a risk assessment and a site-specific method statement but these did not reflect the reality of the controls in place for the use of the chip spreader. Indeed, the risk assessment described a different type of chip spreader than the one used on site.
Ashmac Construction Ltd did not take reasonably practicable steps to ensure workers that it placed on site had received appropriate information, instruction and training in the safe use of the chipper they were operating.
Amey LG Ltd, of the Sherard Building, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford, was fined £150,015 and ordered to pay costs of £18,000 after pleading guilty to one breach of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
Lafarge Aggregates Ltd, of Portland House, Bickenhill Lane, Solihull, Birmingham, was fined £175,015 and ordered to pay costs of £18,000 after pleading guilty to one breach of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
Ashmac Construction Ltd of Pavillion Court, Pavilion Drive, Northampton, was fined £30,015 and ordered to pay costs of £18,000 after pleading guilty to a breach of section 3(1) the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
Following the case, HSE Inspector Gavin Bull, said:
“This tragic incident has left a worker with life-changing injuries. It was wholly avoidable. The risks associated with plant operating are well-known in the industry.”
“This incident highlights the need for workers to receive the information, instruction and training they need to operate plant safely and for companies to put in place measures to ensure the plant is operated safely on site.” NEBOSH Combined National General/Construction Course
The 53-year old road worker was preparing a chip spreader – a machine used to scatter stone chips on asphalt – for resurfacing works on the A1001 in Hatfield when his left arm became caught in the machine’s rotating auger, causing serious injuries.
The highly-experienced worker, from Rushden, Northamptonshire who does not wish to be named, had to have his arm amputated shortly after the incident and has been unable to return to work since.
The incident, on 8 March 2012, was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which prosecuted Amey LG Ltd, Lafarge Aggregates Ltd (acting as Amey Lafarge, a joint venture in charge of the operation) and Ashmac Construction Ltd, who provided workers to the joint venture, for multiple safety breaches at Watford Magistrates’ Court.
The court was told (25 March), in order to prepare the chip spreader for use, the worker placed on the site by Ashmac Construction Ltd started the machine and the rotation of its internal auger. During the operation of setting the machine up for use his arm became entangled in dangerous moving parts.
HSE’s investigation revealed a series of safety failings on the part of all three companies.
HSE found the worker, who was not formally trained in the use of the spreader, and his colleagues were only given one evening to familiarise themselves with the machine by Amey Lafarge when they started work on site six months before the incident.
Amey Lafarge did not give the workers any instruction or training in how to operate the machine safely, including how to secure guards, nor were they given a copy of the operator’s manual for the machine. In addition, there was no safe system of work in place to ensure that the machine was set up and operated properly and that its use was restricted to those who were trained.
The Amey Lafarge did have a risk assessment and a site-specific method statement but these did not reflect the reality of the controls in place for the use of the chip spreader. Indeed, the risk assessment described a different type of chip spreader than the one used on site.
Ashmac Construction Ltd did not take reasonably practicable steps to ensure workers that it placed on site had received appropriate information, instruction and training in the safe use of the chipper they were operating.
Amey LG Ltd, of the Sherard Building, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford, was fined £150,015 and ordered to pay costs of £18,000 after pleading guilty to one breach of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
Lafarge Aggregates Ltd, of Portland House, Bickenhill Lane, Solihull, Birmingham, was fined £175,015 and ordered to pay costs of £18,000 after pleading guilty to one breach of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
Ashmac Construction Ltd of Pavillion Court, Pavilion Drive, Northampton, was fined £30,015 and ordered to pay costs of £18,000 after pleading guilty to a breach of section 3(1) the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.
Following the case, HSE Inspector Gavin Bull, said:
“This tragic incident has left a worker with life-changing injuries. It was wholly avoidable. The risks associated with plant operating are well-known in the industry.”
“This incident highlights the need for workers to receive the information, instruction and training they need to operate plant safely and for companies to put in place measures to ensure the plant is operated safely on site.” NEBOSH Combined National General/Construction Course
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)