Monday 27 October 2014

Drinks firm Diageo sentenced after two workers injured

Drinks company Diageo Scotland Ltd has been fined 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, 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 that an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (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.

“At Burghead Maltings, Diageo’s management was aware of the blockage issue; however they failed to identify that a safe method of working was not in place and that unsafe practices for clearing blockages had developed.

“At Glenlossie, a discussion with a loader shovel operator on how it was washed would have identified the dangers to employees. The risk assessment on the use of the loader shovel should also have considered the risks associated with its cleaning.

“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.”

Mental health service provider fined following patient fall

Mental health services provider North Essex Partnership University Foundation Trust (NEPUFT) has been fined for safety failings after a resident service user with a history of trying to abscond fell from the first floor window of a secure unit in Harlow.
The 18 year old, who does not wish to be named, suffered two fractures to her back and a dislocated right knee after falling a distance of three-and-a-half metres from her dormitory bedroom window at the Derwent Centre on Hamstel Road on 27 July 2013.

NEPUFT was prosecuted after the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigated the fall.

Colchester Magistrates’ Court heard the incident could have been prevented had a window restrictor on her bedroom dormitory window been properly set to the requisite 100mm.

North Essex Partnership University Foundation Trust, of Stapleford House, Stapleford Close, Chelmsford, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £615 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Speaking after the hearing HSE Inspector Kim Tichias, said:

“The risks of vulnerable patients falling from windows are well known. There have been a number of similar accidents in recent years, including fatalities, and any windows that are accessible to vulnerable people should be restrained so that they cannot be opened far enough to allow people to fall out.

“This incident is all the more serious because it involves a member of the public who was in this environment specifically to ensure her safety and well-being.

“Furthermore, the Trust was aware of the risks but had not put adequate safety measures in place in a timely manner. A window restrictor, correctly set to allow a maximum opening of 100mm, would have prevented this incident and the serious injuries suffered.”

College in court over employee’s life-long injuries

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.

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.

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.”

Employer sentenced after worker crushed to death

A 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 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.” 

Firm sentenced following worker’s death in explosion

A horticultural company has been fined after a worker died and three others were seriously injured in an explosion while emptying a pressurised tank used to heat greenhouses.
Peter James, aged 67 of Southmead Terrace, Crewkerne, died of head injuries six days after the incident. Two of his workmates had been asked to open the tank in preparation for upgrading work at a nursery at Bradon Farm, Isle Abbots, near Taunton on 11 May 2010.
 
The incident was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which prosecuted Mr James’ employer, Cantelo Nurseries Ltd, at Taunton Crown Court.
 
The court heard that two workers were asked to unbolt a hatch cover from a pressure vessel while there was still pressure in the system. This caused a devastating release of pressure that sent the hatch cover flying across the room followed by a large jet of water that swept everyone off their feet. 
 
 In addition to Mr James’s fatal injuries, the three other men standing nearby suffered severe injuries.

Arek Kuchczynski, aged 29, was unconscious for two weeks following the incident and remained in hospital for many months after suffering injuries to his head and skull, and damage to his forearm, requiring three operations and a skin graft.

Roger Mees, a 43 year old horticultural manager, suffered serious trauma to his head including a broken jaw, heavy bruising to his face, damage to his teeth, a cut across the nose, black eyes and a two-inch deep cut to his lip. Horticultural technician Radoslau Dimitov, aged 25, also suffered a fractured arm.

HSE’s investigation found that the work was not properly planned, that workers had not been properly trained or supervised, and that at least one of them spoke very little English, which made it difficult to understand instructions.
The court was told the hatch should not have been removed until all the pressure had been safely released from the system.
 
Cantelo Nurseries Ltd, of Bradon Farm, Isle Abbotts, Taunton, pleaded guilty to two breaches of health and safety legislation and was fined a total of £80,000 and ordered to pay £59,812 in costs.
 
HSE Inspector Christine Haberfield, speaking after the hearing, 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 that the work was properly planned, carried out by competent people and supervised. Had this been done, this tragedy could have been avoided.

“All employers must ensure any task of this nature, indeed any maintenance or repair task, is properly planned and considered to ensure that sensible precautions can be taken. That includes ensuring all sources of energy are isolated before work begins.”


Worker ‘lucky to be alive’ after cutting through mains cable

A labourer from Liverpool could have been killed when he cut through a mains electricity cable, a court has heard.
The 22-year-old from Prescott had been told the electricity supply had been disconnected but was thrown across a basement when his angle grinder made contact with the live wires.

Construction firm Vermont Capitol Ltd was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) following the incident at a building site on Shaw Street on 2 August 2013.

Liverpool Magistrates’ Court heard that the company was clearing the site before building a block of around 60 student flats at the end of a row of Grade-II-listed Regency terraced houses, dating from the 1830s.

The end terrace had been partially demolished after becoming structurally unsound, leaving just the façade and basement on the building site.

The court was told the worker had been asked to remove old pipes and cables from the cellar but Vermont Capitol had failed to ensure the mains supply into the building had been disconnected, despite informing the site manager that it had.

There was a flash as the labourer cut into the cable and he suffered injuries to his elbow and shoulder after being thrown across the room. His protective clothing prevented him from suffering burns or being more badly injured.

Vermont Capitol Ltd, of Argyle Street in Liverpool, was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £980 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 by failing to identify the live mains cable.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Chris Hatton said:

“This young worker is extremely lucky to be alive after suffering an electric shock from a mains cable likely to be carrying at least 240 volts of power.

“The team on the site had been told all of the utilities entering the site had been disconnected and so the worker had no way of knowing he was actually cutting into a live electricity cable.

“It’s vital that developers take the risks seriously from gas pipes and electricity cables and get written confirmation that supplies have been disconnected before starting work. Otherwise lives will continue to be put at risk.”

Scrap metal firm fined over lead poisoning

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.

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.”

Tuesday 21 October 2014

HSE Myth Buster - 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.

Firm sentenced after worker’s leg injured by chainsaw

An East Kilbride firm has been fined for safety failings after a worker was injured when a chainsaw hit him on the leg as he slipped while felling trees.  
Hugh Dorricot, then aged 26, was not wearing appropriate personal protective equipment and was not adequately trained to use a chainsaw when the incident took place at Gartsherrie Burn, near Gartsherrie Road, Coatbridge, North Lanarkshire, on 9 March 2010.

Airdrie Sheriff Court was told that Mr Dorricott was working for Enviroclean (Scotland) Ltd to clear vegetation and trees from an embankment beside Gartsherrie Burn, which sloped at an angle of approximately 45 degrees. As he began to fell one of the trees, Mr Dorricott felt the ground move away from beneath his feet causing him to fall backwards and start sliding down the embankment. As he fell, the moving chainsaw cut through his trousers and into his lower left leg.

He was taken to hospital with a deep cut near his knee and underwent an operation to repair the wound. He has since recovered and returned to work.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that a risk assessment produced by Enviroclean for using a chainsaw stated that all employees must be properly instructed, trained and supervised, and that personal protective equipment, including chainmail leggings, must be worn.
However, HSE Inspectors discovered that at the time of the incident no employees of the company were certified as competent to use a chainsaw, and that Mr Dorricott was not wearing adequate personal protective equipment. In addition, he was not made aware of the risks involved in carrying out the job.

Enviroclean (Scotland) Ltd, of Hawbank Road, East Kilbride, was fined £7,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Following the case, HSE Inspector Jennie Stafford, said:

“Hand-held chainsaws are dangerous machines which must be handled with the greatest care. That is why it is a legal requirement to ensure that users are adequately trained by a competent person.

“It is clear this incident could have been avoided had Enviroclean (Scotland) Ltd taken reasonably practicable steps – ensuring that only trained and competent users were allowed to operate the chainsaw; discussing the risk assessment with workers, clarifying the system of work and enforcing the wearing of appropriate personal protective equipment.

“However, the company failed to do this and instead, Mr Dorricott suffered a painful injury.”

 

Tuesday 7 October 2014

Derbyshire school fined after grandmother falls from stairs

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

Firm prosecuted after worker loses fingertip in unguarded drill

A West Midlands fabrications company has been fined after an employee lost the tip of his finger in an unguarded drill.
Black Country Magistrates’ Court heard the 32-year-old man, from Dudley, was drilling holes into metal components at H&H Alloy Sales Ltd when the incident happened on 18 December 2013.

As he pushed a piece of metal which was not moving properly, his hand shot across it and his middle finger became caught on the drill bit. His glove became entangled so he was unable to pull it out.

He had to have the tip of his middle finger amputated and was off work for three months. However, when he returned in March this year, he suffered considerable discomfort and surgeons decided to amputate the finger further, to the first joint. He only went back to the factory three weeks ago.

An HSE investigation found the company had a documented safe system of work for the drill which stated that as part of the preparations for work, the guard should be placed in position and then checked by the operator to make sure it is correct. However, the guard had been removed at some point previously and never replaced. It was subsequently re-fitted after being found in a box.

H&H Alloy Sales Ltd, of Titford Lane, Rowley Regis, was yesterday (2 Oct) fined £13,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,391 after pleading guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Judith Lloyd said:

“The incident was entirely preventable. The underlying cause was that it was custom and practice to use the drill without a guard in place. Instruction for employees was lacking and there was no system in place to check that guards were being used correctly, despite having a written procedure.

“It was reasonably practicable to guard the drill and it had in fact been guarded in the past. Wearing gloves without an appropriate guard significantly increased the risk of entanglement, something the company had been provided with advice on during a previous inspection.

“Following the incident the job was completed on a programmable automatic drilling machine which begs the question, why didn’t the company use this method from the start? If it had, a man would have been spared a painful injury.”

Firm in court over worker’s drill injury

 
A 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 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.

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.”

Gas fitter sentenced after illegally removing boiler

A Suffolk-based self-employed builder has been given a prison sentence and community service after leaving a householder in danger when he left a gas supply pipe open and uncapped after illegally removing a boiler as part of a central heating installation project.
An investigation by the HSE into the incident on 11 October 2012 found that Keith Vickerstaff was not Gas Safe registered and was not qualified to carry out any works involving the removal or installation of gas appliances.

It was discovered that Mr Vickerstaff had been reported to Gas Safe’s predecessor, CORGI, in 2007 for a similar offence of carrying out unregistered gas work.

Ipswich Crown Court heard that Mr Vickerstaff removed a gas boiler and left an open ended, uncapped, gas supply pipe. It was later classed as ‘immediately dangerous’ by a Gas Safe investigator, who checked the work after Mr Vickerstaff abandoned the job, despite taking a considerable deposit for installing full central heating.

Keith Vickerstaff, 49, of Wainwright Way, Kesgrave, Ipswich was given a six months prison sentence suspended for 18 months and 180 hours of unpaid community work after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 3(1) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 and section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

After the case, HSE Inspector Anthony Brookes, said:

“It is sheer luck that nobody was injured as a result of Mr Vickerstaff’s shoddy and illegal work. His actions endangered householders and their neighbours and put them at serious risk of injury and even potentially death.

“He took money for work that he was not competent to do and left the occupants of the house thousands of pounds out of pocket and with an extremely dangerous gas supply that could have caused a fire or explosion at any time.”

Safer sites – targeted inspection initiative September 2014

Health as well as safety’ is the message during this year’s Construction Initiative as poor standards and unsafe practices on Britain’s building sites are targeted during a nationwide drive aimed at reducing ill health, death and injury in the industry.

From 22 September until 17 October, HSE Construction Inspectors will carry out unannounced visits to sites where refurbishment projects or repair works are underway.

This is the ninth annual Initiative and building on previous campaigns, HSE Inspectors will ensure high-risk activities particularly those affecting the health of workers, are being properly managed.

What the initiative does

The main aims of the initiative are:
  • to achieve an improvement in industry standards, in particular at small sites
  • to increase awareness of HSE’s expectations of the industry
  • to demonstrate that HSE will use the enforcement tools at its disposal to prevent immediate risk and bring about sustained improvements

What inspectors look for

During inspections, HSE inspectors will consider whether:
  • risks to health from exposure to dust such as silica are being controlled
  • workers are aware of where they may find asbestos, and what to do if they find it
  • other health risks, such as exposure to noise and vibration, manual handling, hazardous substances are being properly managed
  • jobs that involve working at height have been identified and properly planned to ensure that appropriate precautions, such as proper support of structures, are in place
  • equipment is correctly installed / assembled, inspected and maintained and used properly
  • sites are well organised, to avoid trips and falls, walkways and stairs are free from obstructions and welfare facilities are adequate
HSE uses the inspection initiatives to reinforce its message to the construction industry that poor standards are unacceptable and liable to result in HSE taking enforcement action

Friday 3 October 2014

Worker dies in Heathrow Airport Terminal 2 accident

A construction worker has died in an accident at Heathrow Airport's recently reopened Terminal 2.

The man in his 30s suffered serious injuries following a collision with a truck at about 04:45 BST on the 2nd October, police said.

London Air Ambulance attended but the man died at the scene at about 05:45 BST. No arrests have been made.

The incident happened in an area of the terminal where construction activity was still taking place, an airport spokesman said.

The driver stopped at the scene, Scotland Yard said.

"Our deepest sympathy and thoughts are with their family, friends and colleagues," the Heathrow spokesman said.

The man has yet to be formally identified but his next of kin have been informed.

The Health and Safety Executive it was aware of the incident and was assisting police with inquiries at the site.

A new Heathrow Terminal 2 - known as the Queen's Terminal - opened in June.

Workplace drug testing 'on the rise', say providers

Workplace drug testing has increased significantly in the UK, four leading screening companies have said.

They have seen rises in the number of annual tests carried out of between 40% and 470% over four years.

Workers cannot be made to take a drugs test, but if they refuse when the employer has good grounds for testing, they may face disciplinary action.

Business leaders' increased awareness of workplace drug use is a large factor behind the growth, said LGC Group.

It added that the adoption of a drugs-testing policy is "mainly due to insurance purposes".

The four companies are Alere, Synergy Health, LGC Group and BioClinics. The last two saw rises of 100% and 470% respectively over the four years in the number of drugs tests they conduct annually, although they started from a smaller base.

Wider business use

Lianne Gray, LGC Group's strategic account manager for occupational drug testing, said employees in safety-critical roles - such as operating heavy machinery or driving - and government agencies were most likely to be screened.

But she said there was a growing trend for drug testing to be conducted in "more normalised industries", including retail and health companies, as businesses look to "safeguard not only the business, but also the reputation in the field they work in".

Ms Gray said there had been changes in the types of drugs for which businesses wished to screen.

"Traditionally we see requests for amphetamines, cocaine, cannabis, opiates," she said. "Now we're seeing more requests for things like ketamine, steroids, and also for novel psychoactive substances - or legal highs as they're otherwise known."

Under current law, businesses must have the consent of employees whom they wish to screen for drugs, and usually this will be in the contract or staff handbook.

Drugs testing is normally performed at random. It is also sometimes enforced prior to employment, on cause - following an accident or incident - or on suspicion.

Stobart Group, which includes the well-known Eddie Stobart haulage business, introduced a drugs-testing policy three years ago.

The services and infrastructure company, which operates London Southend Airport, screens not only its hundreds of truckers but all its employees, including shop workers.

Director of safety and compliance Neil Marston said: "We want to maintain a safe working environment for all our staff. But also for our customers, our visitors who pass through our premises. We're also very proud of our brand and want to protect it."

The increases in drug testing have angered civil liberties groups, who say that the practice is an invasion of people's privacy outside of safety critical roles.

Niamh Eastwood from the drugs advice charity, Release, said they frequently took calls from people who had falsely tested positive for drugs.

Eating poppy seed bread for instance can indicate the presence of opiates in some tests.

She said another problem is that although drug tests may indicate what substances are in the system, they do not indicate if a worker's performance is likely to be affected.

Wednesday 1 October 2014

HSE Myth Busters

Scouts not allowed to have an allotment

Issue

The enquirer has been advised by the chair of their local allotment community gardens site that a group of scouts under the supervision of a leader can not have a plot, for "health and safety& reasons. The scouts are keen to grow their own veg, and an allotment would be ideal for a small group to get started with.

Panel decision

Although there are some minor risks associated with cultivating an allotment (use of tools, possible use of chemicals) these are all easily manageable with proper supervision which one could reasonably expect the Scout movement to provide.
The panel strongly believes that this is an excellent opportunity for Scouts to become involved in growing food and getting physical exercise and it is a great pity that "health and safety" has been offered up as a poor excuse for not allowing them to do it. The allotment committee should own up to their true reasons for refusing this worthwhile project.

Family told they must use the indoor play barn before the outdoor activities at a petting farm

Issue

The enquirer visited a mini farm which also had an adventure playground and fishing lakes outside and an indoor soft play barn. They were told that if they wanted to use the indoor play barn they would have to pay and use this first before looking around the outside attractions due to "health and safety" reasons.

Panel decision

Young children are particularly vulnerable to zoonotic infections such as E-coli and good hygiene is very important in petting farms. This establishment has decided to implement a rule that the indoor play barn should be used before petting the animals to avoid the risk of any child picking up an infection from contaminated play equipment. In the panel’s view this is an entirely sensible measure, but the staff need to be trained to understand the reasons and be prepared to explain that clearly to visitors.

Motorcyclist told to remove helmet and get off the motorcycle whilst refuelling

Issue

The enquirer, whilst refuelling a motorcycle at a filling station, was asked to remove their safety helmet before the pump was switched on. Then on another occasion they were asked to get off the motorcycle before refuelling. The enquirer wrote to the supermarket filling station CEO requesting an explanation and was told this was for ‘Health and Safety’ reasons.

Panel decision

Requiring motorcyclists to remove their helmets at filling stations is not a health and safety issue. It appears to be a measure to discourage and prevent fuel theft. This is understandable but the filling station should be clear about the real reason.

 Requiring motorcyclists and passengers to dismount and place the motorcycle on its stand during refuelling is a sensible measure which is stated in the Energy Institute’s guidance on petrol station refuelling. It enables better control of the refilling operation, reduces the risk of spilling fuel on clothes, high temperature parts of the motorcycle itself and on the forecourt. A clearer explanation by the supermarket of the logic behind both of these requirements would have been helpful.


Apartment balconies not to be used for washing and storage

Issue

The enquirer recently moved into rented accommodation with large (half enclosed balconies), however all residents have been sent a letter saying that balconies should not be used for hanging washing, storing large plants or bicycles due to health and safety.

Panel decision

When properties have balconies it is reasonable to assume they are there to be used and it is difficult to understand why a ban on certain uses of the balconies has been put in place. The panel’s view is that this is a mis-use of "health and safety" as an excuse for banning the use of balconies for activities which would detract from the overall appearance of the property. Tenants deserve a proper explanation.

National clampdown targets construction industry’s poor health record

‘Health as well as safety’ will be the message as poor standards and unsafe work on Britain’s building sites are targeted as part of a nationwide drive aimed at reducing ill health, death and injury in the industry.
During the month long initiative, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) will carry out unannounced visits to sites where refurbishment projects or repair works are underway.

From 22 September, HSE Inspectors will ensure high-risk activities particularly those affecting the health of workers, are being properly managed. These include working with harmful dusts such as silica and asbestos, and other hazardous substances. If unacceptable standards are found Inspectors will take immediate enforcement action.

HSE is urging industry to ‘think health’ as over 30,000 construction workers are made ill by their work every year.

Philip White, HSE Chief Inspector of Construction, said:

“Industry has made much progress in reducing the number of people killed and injured in its activities, but for every fatal accident, approximately 100 construction workers die from a work-related cancer.
 
During the recent health initiative, enforcement action was taken on one in six sites.  Time and again we find smaller contractors working on refurbishment and repair work failing to protect their workers through a lack of awareness and poor control of risks.

This isn’t acceptable – it costs lives, and we will take strong and robust action where we find poor practice and risky behaviour.

Through campaigns like this we aim to ensure contractors take all risks to their workers seriously, and not just focus on immediate safety implications. They need to put in place practical measures to keep workers both safe and well”

Construction firm sentenced after barrier fell on baby’s pram

A construction firm has been fined for safety failings after a barrier was blown on top of a pram injuring an 18-week-old baby.
The baby boy was asleep in his pram while his mother used a cash machine outside a supermarket in Drip Road, Stirling, when the incident occurred on 24 October 2011.

Stirling Sheriff Court was told that Kier Construction Ltd was refurbishing the supermarket and had assembled barriers to separate the public from the work that was going on. Branding banners saying the supermarket was still open for business were attached to the barriers.

The court heard the baby’s mother parked the pram near to the barriers with her 13-year-old daughter, standing next to it. As she walked to the cash machine she heard her daughter scream. She turned and saw a barrier with banner attached had fallen on top of the pram hood, which had collapsed on the baby. They tried to lift the barrier off the pram and a passer-by came to their assistance.

The baby was taken to hospital with bruising to his forehead. He was discharged that day and suffered no more effects from the incident.

An investigation by the HSE found that contrary to manufacturer’s instructions, the barriers had not been filled with water to ensure stability and the barriers next to the cash machines had not been locked together.

Inspectors also discovered that the previous month, high winds had caused the barriers to fall over and the site manger had ordered the removal of the banners. Concrete blocks were then placed at the base of the barriers but they were not filled with water.

Kier Construction Ltd, of, Tempsford Hall, Sandy, Bedfordshire, was fined £4,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Following the case, HSE Principal Inspector Isabelle Martin, said:
“This incident could easily have been prevented. If assembled correctly the barriers could withstand winds of up to 58mph. On the day of the incident windspeed was about 30mph and should not have been an issue.

“Instead, because Kier Construction Limited failed to properly construct the barriers, a young baby was hurt. Luckily, his injuries were minor but they could have been worse. This incident should serve as a reminder to construction companies about their duty to protect members of the public who may be affected by their work.”

Builder photographed risking lives

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 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. 


Steve King and another worker on a house roof in Kingsley

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.” 

Residents’ lives put at risk by gas faults in 349 properties

A plumbing and heating company, and two self-employed people who worked for them, have been sentenced following an investigation into a significant number of faulty gas installations at new developments in Poole and Reading.
The investigation by the HSE led to the prosecution of DSI Plumbing and Heating, Robert Percival and Andrew Church, at Bournemouth Crown Court.

The court heard that Harbour Reach in Poole contained 261 flats and 79 town houses, while Caversham Road in Reading contained 60 flats. These were heated by gas boilers installed on internal walls, with flue gases, including poisonous carbon monoxide, vented to the open air by flues installed in building voids. In such situations inspection hatches must be provided to allow the flues to be periodically checked for safety.

At Harbour Reach, HSE’s investigations found faults including gas leaks, and flues and gas supply pipes that had not been properly fitted – establishing that the initial installation work was substandard, and that the final checking and commissioning of the work was inadequate and ineffective.

There were no inspection hatches originally installed in any of the ceilings of the flats, meaning that the flues could not be subsequently checked for safety.  As a result, the gas supply to all 340 gas meters on the Harbour Reach site had to be disconnected until remedial action was taken.

The investigation also revealed evidence of defects in the installations in 309 (or over 90%) of the dwellings at Harbour Reach.  At Caversham Road in Reading, HSE’s investigation uncovered defects in the gas installation affecting 40 properties. As at Harbour Reach, inspection hatches were not initially installed to allow the flue system to be inspected, and defects were found with both gas supply and flue installations.

Mr Church completed the commissioning documents for the work without carrying out the required checks.

DSI Plumbing and Heating Ltd, of The Square, Fawley, near Southampton pleaded guilty to two breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and was fined a total of £10,000 and ordered to pay a further £1,000 in costs.
Robert Percival, of Legion Road, Poole, and Andrew Church, of Ensign Drive, Gosport, both pleaded guilty to a single breach of the same legislation, Mr Percival for his commissioning of gas installations at one property, and Mr Church for making false entries into documents. They were both given a two year conditional discharge and were each ordered to pay costs of £250.
After sentencing, HSE Head of Operations, Harvey Wild, said:

“These serious failings involving gas safety only came to light after residents started to complain about ill-health. It is fortunate that in this case, no-one suffered long term ill-effects but the consequences of the faults, if left undetected, could have been fatal.

“Gas installers need to make sure flues and pipes can be properly checked and all installations are checked for safety as part of commissioning to ensure lives are not put at risk.”

Home improvement company fined for potentially lethal work

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  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.”

Salford recycling firm sentenced over worker’s crushed leg

A recycling firm has appeared in court after an employee almost lost his right leg when it became trapped in a machine at a Swinton factory. 
Nearly a year after the incident, doctors still do not know whether the 41-year-old from Middleton, who has asked not to be named, will ever regain the full use of his leg. 

Roydon Polythene (Exports) Ltd was prosecuted by the HSE after an investigation found workers at the plant at Junction Eco Park were routinely put at risk when they tried to remove blockages.

Trafford Magistrates’ Court heard that the employee had been trying to clear a jam in a glass sorting machine on 16 October 2013. 

He was lifted in a mobile elevating work platform, similar in appearance to a cherry picker, before climbing out of the basket and onto a conveyor belt, more than four metres above the ground. As he tried to clear the blockage, his right leg was drawn into the machinery. 

His leg remained trapped for more than two hours while emergency services tried to cut him free. He sustained significant crush injuries, requiring multiple operations to try and save his leg. 

The court was told that it had become routine for workers to climb from the lifting basket onto the conveyor belt to clear blockages from an unguarded part of the machine. There were also no guard rails around the edge of the conveyor to prevent employees from falling to the ground below. 

Roydon Polythene (Exports) Ltd, of Rake Lane in Swinton, was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £1,221 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to single breaches of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and the Work at Height Regulations 2005. 

The charges relate to failing to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery, and failing to put measures in place to prevent workers falling from height. 
Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Jackie Worrall said: “A worker has suffered severe injuries that will affect him for the rest of his life because his employer failed in its duty to ensure he stayed safe at work. 

“This wasn’t a one-off incident. Instead, workers were routinely expected to climb onto the conveyor belt to clear blockages from an unguarded part of the machine, putting their lives at risk. It was therefore almost inevitable that someone would be injured, either by becoming trapped in the machine or falling to the ground below.

“Roydon Polythene should have carried out a proper assessment of the risks facing its employees, and taken action to put safety measures in place. If it had then the worker’s injuries could have been avoided.”

Basingstoke company in court after worker crushed

A Basingstoke engineering firm has been sentenced for safety breaches that led to a 42-year-old man being crushed between a telehandler and a steel post at a workshop in West Drayton.
The man, from Berkshire, suffered life-threatening injuries when he was trapped by the machine against the post as he acted as a lookout for the vehicle.
He had to have his spleen and most of his pancreas removed and was in hospital for four months after the incident.  He has yet to be able to return to work, but is hoping to do so shortly.

The incident, on 25 September 2013, was investigated by the HSE, which prosecuted RVC Engineering Ltd for safety failings at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.

The court was told that an impromptu operation had been taking place to enable workers to shunt a broken-down telehandler into the RVC workshop. It was agreed that an HGV would be reversed up to the vehicle to push it just the few feet it needed to end up within the unit.

The injured person was asked to act as a lookout but became trapped between the moving telehandler and the post. He was freed within a few minutes but had suffered severe crush injuries.

RVC Engineering Ltd, of Springpark House, Basing View, Basingstoke, Hants, was fined £6,600 and ordered to pay £1,087 in costs after admitting a breach of Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Pete Collingwood said:

“A worker suffered a very serious injury from what was perceived to be an innocuous operation.  It was an entirely preventable injury as the maneovre could have been conducted without the need for his involvement.

“Crush injuries are common from reversing vehicles in industry. RVC Engineering should have planned this operation carefully despite it being of a short duration and then ensured the whole thing was adequately supervised.”

Company prosecuted after worker suffers back injury in fork lift fall

A fork lift truck company has been fined after a worker at its West Bromwich factory fractured a vertebra in his back when one of its vehicles fell from a lorry.
Black Country Magistrates’ Court heard that 58-year-old Terence Jones was unloading the forklift at Linde Creighton Ltd, in Dartmouth Road, by driving it down a ramp.

However, the ramp dislodged from the trailer, causing it and the forklift to drop straight down. The truck fell around 1.2 metres, landing upright on all four wheels in the incident on 21 October 2013.

An investigation by the HSE found the ramp had not been securely attached to the trailer using both the chains it came with. Although one of the two chains had been attached, the other was left off as overhanging bushes made it difficult to get to the far side of the ramp.

The investigation also found the company had failed to risk assess the activity and monitor and enforce the safe system of work to ensure staff used all the safety critical features when attaching the ramp.

Linde Creighton Ltd, of Kingsclere Road, Basingstoke, was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay £1,144 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Caroline Lane said:

“Mr Jones had used the ramp at least twice a day to unload fork lift truck deliveries since the company bought it in 2008. The ramp manufacturer had provided instructions for its use, and safety warnings and precautions in the operating and maintenance manual clearly stated that unless restrained, the ramp could move away from the dock of the vehicle and that personnel could fall.

“The incident was therefore entirely foreseeable and preventable. Linde Creighton Ltd had a clear, easily achievable standard to meet but failed to achieve it, resulting in a painful injury to a member of staff.”