Risk, Health and Safety Information

Health and Safety in the news this week

IOSH: PM’s mental health pledge “a step in right direction”

Prime Minister Theresa May’s pledge to improve mental health services in UK workplaces is “a step in the right direction”, according to the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH).

Mrs May has announced plans to overhaul mental health care in the UK, saying "there's not enough help to hand" for anyone experiencing problems.

Included in a raft of measures she introduced during a speech on Monday 9 January are a review into improving support in workplaces - headed up by mental health campaigner Lord Stevenson and Paul Farmer, Chief Executive of the charity Mind - and providing employers with additional training to support staff who need to take time off.

IOSH recognises that businesses need to ensure that they are taking positive steps to manage mental health in the workplace. Following Mrs May's speech, Shelley Frost, Executive Director of Policy at IOSH, said:

"We believe this announcement by the Prime Minister on increased employer support for mental health is a step in the right direction. We're delighted that messages from our Westminster awareness-raising event, 'Promoting mental health at work', have registered with Government. We need better-designed and managed work through improved education, training and awareness and employers have an important role to play. IOSH is currently funding research in this area and will be pleased to share the findings with the Government, to help inform their policy."

The IOSH-funded research into this area will include looking at the effectiveness of mental health training and the processes and barriers associated with returning to work after mental illness.

The plans to improve mental health services in workplaces have also been welcomed by the Institute of Directors, with the organisation's Director General Simon Walker saying employers have "a real role to play".

Source: www.newsnow.co.uk

HSE prosecution round up:

Construction Company fined after contractor receives life changing injuries

A Lincolnshire based construction company, specialising in fitting mezzanine floors was prosecuted after a contractor fell onto a concrete floor.

Guildford Crown Court heard that M & L Installers Ltd were contracted to install a mezzanine floor at a factory in Sunbury on Thames, Surrey. The design included a hole in the mezzanine floor where a lift was due to be installed.

A contractor who was working on the floor fell just over 3.5 metres, and suffered life threatening injuries, when he stepped backwards through the hole on 13 January 2015. He was hospitalised for 2 months after receiving a severe brain injury and has not been able to work since.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive found that the company failed to guard the hole for the lift or board it up preventing anyone from falling through.

M & L Installers Ltd pleaded guilty to a breach of the Work at Height Regulations, Regulation 6(3) and were fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £9165.56 costs.

HSE Inspector, Amanda Huff, commented after the hearing:

“The contractor’s injuries were life changing and he could have easily been killed. This serious incident and devastation could have been avoided if basic safeguards had been put in place”.

Company prosecuted after workers were severely burned

A North East engineering company was sentenced today for safety breaches after two of its workers were burned when they were sprayed with chemicals during chemical cleaning of a pipework system.

Newcastle Crown Court heard that, on 31 July 2014, two employees of PSL Worldwide Projects Ltd received serious burns while working at a Hyclone UK Ltd site in Cramlington. The workers were using Sodium Hydroxide granules to clean a pipe system. A reaction occurred between the chemicals and water in the system that caused the liquid to heat up, building up pressure in the hose. The hose detached and sprayed the two workers with the solution, causing severe burns.

One operative received life threatening burns to his back, buttocks, arms, leg, neck and one side of his face. The other operative received burns to the right side of his head, his neck, and back, left arm and behind his right ear.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) identified that the task was not adequately risk assessed by PSL Worldwide Projects Ltd, the equipment provided to do the job, in particular the hosing, was not suitable for the solution, and the company failed to provide adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) to its employees.

PSL Worldwide Projects Ltd of Bridgewater Lane, Washington, Tyne and Wear, pleaded not guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 on 28 November 2016 at Bedlington Magistrates Court but they were found guilty and the case was referred to Newcastle Crown Court for sentencing. They were fined £150,000 by Newcastle Crown Court. No costs were awarded due to the company being in liquidation.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Laura Catterall commented:

“If a suitable risk assessment had been undertaken it would have identified that the equipment being used was not right for the chemicals or the work being carried out. All companies who work with high hazard chemicals should learn from this case and ensure that their workers are properly protected.”

Crisp company fined for safety failings

A Northamptonshire company who manufacture crisps and snacks has been fined after an agency worker lost the tops of three fingers.

Northampton Crown Court heard how an agency worker, working at Tayto Group Limited was clearing a blockage of material from a machine on the production line.  The worker’s hand came into contact with shears and three fingers on his right hand were severed below the first knuckle.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident, which occurred in August 2015, found that the guard on the machine was not secured at the time of the incident. The company had not implemented a formal monitoring system on this machine to ensure that all guards were in place and secure before the machine was started.

Tayto Group Limited, of Princewood Road, Earlstrees Industrial Estate, Corby, Northamptonshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER), and was fined £330,000 and ordered to pay costs of £11,752.23.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Michelle Morrison said:

“This man suffered a life-changing injury in what was an entirely preventable incident. Employers must have adequate and robust systems to ensure that guards used to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery are in place and secure before machinery is put into use.”

Source: www.hse.gov.uk

HSE Health and Safety Myths Buster

Children banned from waiting in car at Recycling centre

Issue

A recycling centre manager requested that children be removed from their parent’s car and taken outside the centre to wait as they are not allowed on site for health and safety reasons.

Panel opinion

There is specific industry guidance which clearly states that “children should stay in the car” at civic amenity sites, so this is a badly misinformed myth.  It is also a dangerous myth, in that the “health and safety” excuse used could have led to a greater risk to the children. Managers at waste and recycling sites should know their industry standards much better than this.

Company told by insurers to employ a professional ‘Keyholding Service’ to comply with health and safety regulations

Issue

A Company with an employee nominated as a primary intruder alarm keyholder was told by insurers that there is a legal requirement to establish a "Keyholding Service" with a professional security company in order to comply with health and safety regulations.

Panel opinion

Employers do need to take steps to ensure that those responding to alarm call outs are not exposed to a risk of violence. Those steps will be based on an assessment of the risks to their employees. Whilst a ‘keyholding’ service’ may form part of a safe system of work, there is no legal requirement to engage such a service. The insurance company should not have implied that this was the case.