In summary the key points are as follows:
“The problem lies less with the regulations themselves and more with the way they are interpreted and applied”
Consolidating the regulations should reduce them by 35%
Health and Safety ( First Aid ) Regulations 1981 – remove the requirement for HSE approved training and qualifications
CDM Regulations 2007 – evaluate its effectiveness by April 2012
RIDDOR 1995 – to be amended by the end of 2013
Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 – clarify requirement for portable appliance testing by April 2012
Work at Height Regulations 2005 – review by April 2013
Display Screen Equipment Regulations 1992 – question the need for eye tests
Monday, 19 December 2011
Friday, 18 November 2011
New support for SMEs to tackle drug and alcohol abuse
A European initiative, which aims to provide guidance for small
businesses on how to deal with employees with drug or alcohol problems,
has launched an electronic learning package and training course to help
managers tackle the issue.
The Maximising Employee Potential by Minimising the Impact of Substances (MEPMIS) Project is being funded by the Leonardo Foundation, which is part of the European Commission’s Lifelong Learning Programme. It brought together seven European partners including a university, a research agency, three consultancies, a web design firm, and an IT company. The partners were based in the UK, Ireland, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland.
The project features a dedicated website, which has an electronic learning package and a face-to-face training course that is dedicated to reducing absenteeism and under-performance caused by workers’ alcohol, or drug use.
Research by Alcohol Concern revealed that between 11 and 17 million working days are lost in Britain each year because of excessive drinking, and 10 per cent of a typical workforce is said to have an alcohol, or drug problem.
The e-learning and face-to-face training resources are modular and include sections on: examining the best corporate approach to tackling drug and alcohol use; legal principles that underpin any action, including health and safety law, human rights legislation and data protection; managerial knowledge, skills and competencies, which include spotting signs and symptoms, and discipline and support; testing; substances of concern and how they affect behaviour and performance; and putting theory into practice.
Project leader John Griffiths, of work2health Ltd, said: “We spoke to managers and occupational health and safety professionals in each country and asked them what they perceived as their main challenges in this area, and what they felt they needed in terms of information and support. It is one of the key personnel issues they feel least equipped to deal with.
“They are aware that this problem, and associated issues such as testing, can be a legal and social minefield and they want to know what actions are open to them, what’s expected of them, and what the sensitivities are.”
He added: “This is a complex issue; the problem cannot be ignored but employers who think they can simply dismiss workers, or force them to undergo tests without developing and implementing proper policies, procedures and training are likely to run into trouble.
“One of the main aims is to build skills; many companies do not possess the tools to enable their managers to deal with substance use at a corporate level. That’s the value of this new resource.”
Full details of the project can be found at www.alcoholdrugsandwork.eu
The Maximising Employee Potential by Minimising the Impact of Substances (MEPMIS) Project is being funded by the Leonardo Foundation, which is part of the European Commission’s Lifelong Learning Programme. It brought together seven European partners including a university, a research agency, three consultancies, a web design firm, and an IT company. The partners were based in the UK, Ireland, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland.
The project features a dedicated website, which has an electronic learning package and a face-to-face training course that is dedicated to reducing absenteeism and under-performance caused by workers’ alcohol, or drug use.
Research by Alcohol Concern revealed that between 11 and 17 million working days are lost in Britain each year because of excessive drinking, and 10 per cent of a typical workforce is said to have an alcohol, or drug problem.
The e-learning and face-to-face training resources are modular and include sections on: examining the best corporate approach to tackling drug and alcohol use; legal principles that underpin any action, including health and safety law, human rights legislation and data protection; managerial knowledge, skills and competencies, which include spotting signs and symptoms, and discipline and support; testing; substances of concern and how they affect behaviour and performance; and putting theory into practice.
Project leader John Griffiths, of work2health Ltd, said: “We spoke to managers and occupational health and safety professionals in each country and asked them what they perceived as their main challenges in this area, and what they felt they needed in terms of information and support. It is one of the key personnel issues they feel least equipped to deal with.
“They are aware that this problem, and associated issues such as testing, can be a legal and social minefield and they want to know what actions are open to them, what’s expected of them, and what the sensitivities are.”
He added: “This is a complex issue; the problem cannot be ignored but employers who think they can simply dismiss workers, or force them to undergo tests without developing and implementing proper policies, procedures and training are likely to run into trouble.
“One of the main aims is to build skills; many companies do not possess the tools to enable their managers to deal with substance use at a corporate level. That’s the value of this new resource.”
Full details of the project can be found at www.alcoholdrugsandwork.eu
New portal for finding CDM-compliant construction contractors
SSIP says the portal provides instant verification of thousands of construction contractors who have successfully completed a rigorous CDM 2007 Core Criteria Stage 1 assessment. Contractors that have been assessed by an SSIP scheme can demonstrate to any client, or main contractor that they meet the recognised standard for health and safety performance without filling in additional questionnaires.
Unlimited access to the portal will cost £100 a year. SSIP says all revenues from the portal will be ploughed back into improving its service to the construction industry. Simon Mantle, chair of SSIP, said: “Clients seeking complete assurance that a contractor is CDM-compliant can quickly type the company’s name into the portal and check if they hold current certification from an SSIP member. This saves time and cost for the client company, enabling them to get on with Stage 2 assessments.”
According to SSIP, an estimated 5000 clients collect information on 180,000 contractors every year, using more than 2 million questionnaires, at a cost to industry of £1 billion. “The streamlined SSIP process and our new portal will save everybody time and money while providing assurance that robust and consistent assessment processes have been followed,” Mantle said.
The SSIP portal has been developed and is maintained by SSIP member Altius Vendor Assessment, which also provides the online payment process. Another scheme member, Exor Management Services, has provided the administration process for handling customer log-ins.
For more information, go to: www.ssipportal.org.uk
Risk of structural collapse not identified by designer
One of Northern Ireland’s largest construction firms has been fined a
total of £75,000 after a section of a portable office unit caved in on
top of an employee, fatally injuring him.
Sitting on 5 October, Antrim Crown Court heard that on 19 September 2006, Desmond Stevenson, 62, a joiner employed by Henry Brothers, had been removing temporary bracing inside a section of a pre-fabricated unit that was being repositioned to another location 1000 metres away, at RAF Aldergrove, 15 miles from Belfast. The firm had been moving ten of the units as part of a £7.5m contract it had secured.
Ken Logan, an HSENI
inspector who was part of the investigating team, told SHP that the
bracing that should have supported the structure during relocation had
been inadequate. “The problem was, that when the operation was being
planned at the design stage, nobody considered the potential for it to
collapse,” he said.
He went on: “It was clearly foreseeable that there was a risk of the structure collapsing. The lead designer, Anthony Stewart, and Henry Brothers should have realised this state of instability and instructed structural engineers to design an adequate temporary bracing system to be placed inside the line of the structure, so that it could be put in its final position and only then the temporary bracing system removed. They did not do so and, as a result, a 62-year-old joiner paid the ultimate price.”
Henry Brothers (Magherafelt) Ltd had previously pleaded guilty to breaching Article 4(2)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work (NI) Order 1978 by failing to ensure a safe system of work, and reg.9(1) of the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations (NI) 1996 by failing to ensure the stability of a structure. It was fined £60,000 on the first charge and £15,000 on the second.
Stewart was fined £5000 after pleading guilty to a breach of Article 8(a) of the Health and Safety at Work (NI) Order 1978 by not ensuring the safety of himself and other persons. No costs were awarded against him.
“Designers have an obligation to design out risks, or identify them so that they can be properly managed,” inspector Logan said. “In this case the residual risk of collapse was not identified and clearly should have been. If it had been identified, this fatal accident would have been prevented.”
In mitigation, Stewart said he had not fully appreciated his role and responsibilities as a designer in the operation. Henry Brothers said it had a very good health and safety record. It had put its employees through extensive training to ensure such an incident could never happen again. There were lessons to be learned and they had taken them on board. Both expressed their condolences to the victim’s family.
Henry Brothers was ordered to pay a contribution to costs of £15,000.
Sitting on 5 October, Antrim Crown Court heard that on 19 September 2006, Desmond Stevenson, 62, a joiner employed by Henry Brothers, had been removing temporary bracing inside a section of a pre-fabricated unit that was being repositioned to another location 1000 metres away, at RAF Aldergrove, 15 miles from Belfast. The firm had been moving ten of the units as part of a £7.5m contract it had secured.
He went on: “It was clearly foreseeable that there was a risk of the structure collapsing. The lead designer, Anthony Stewart, and Henry Brothers should have realised this state of instability and instructed structural engineers to design an adequate temporary bracing system to be placed inside the line of the structure, so that it could be put in its final position and only then the temporary bracing system removed. They did not do so and, as a result, a 62-year-old joiner paid the ultimate price.”
Henry Brothers (Magherafelt) Ltd had previously pleaded guilty to breaching Article 4(2)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work (NI) Order 1978 by failing to ensure a safe system of work, and reg.9(1) of the Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations (NI) 1996 by failing to ensure the stability of a structure. It was fined £60,000 on the first charge and £15,000 on the second.
Stewart was fined £5000 after pleading guilty to a breach of Article 8(a) of the Health and Safety at Work (NI) Order 1978 by not ensuring the safety of himself and other persons. No costs were awarded against him.
“Designers have an obligation to design out risks, or identify them so that they can be properly managed,” inspector Logan said. “In this case the residual risk of collapse was not identified and clearly should have been. If it had been identified, this fatal accident would have been prevented.”
In mitigation, Stewart said he had not fully appreciated his role and responsibilities as a designer in the operation. Henry Brothers said it had a very good health and safety record. It had put its employees through extensive training to ensure such an incident could never happen again. There were lessons to be learned and they had taken them on board. Both expressed their condolences to the victim’s family.
Henry Brothers was ordered to pay a contribution to costs of £15,000.
Thursday, 3 November 2011
Government cagey about future of HSE website
The Government’s website rationalisation programme and decision to
plough ahead with the development of a single government domain to host
all main public information has thrown the future of the HSE website
into doubt.
A Cabinet Office report released last month shows that 444 central government websites are currently open, compared with 820 last year. The streamlining process aims to reduce unnecessary spending and, at the same time, pave the way for a single government Web domain.
This domain – a recommendation made last year in a government-commissioned report by lastminute.com founder Martha Lane Fox – would host all key public information, building on the services delivered through the Directgov website, as well as offering additional features and reducing the need for individual government sites.
Rumours that the HSE website could be under threat began to circulate following publication of the minutes of the HSE’s Tyre and Rubber Industries Safety Action Group’s meeting in April. The minutes read: “HSE’s website – this may become part of the ‘DirectGov’ website, along with all other Government departments and agencies. Safety Action Group (SG) members expressed their concern at this possibility.”
On seeing these minutes, John Hamilton, head of safety, health and well-being at Leeds Metropolitan University, made some inquiries last month to the HSE, which replied: “There are no current plans to close down HSE’s website and it remains an important resource for both employers and employees.”
Indeed, the wealth of information on the website was one of the main reasons why the HSE decided to sacrifice its Infoline telephone service, which closed in September as part of an efficiency measure. Since then, the Executive has been encouraging businesses and members of the public seeking information and official guidance on health and safety to visit its website, which it describes as “a huge knowledge bank where people can access and download information free of charge and use interactive Web tools”.
The HSE website currently receives 26 million visits a year and had 11,546,036 unique users in 2010/11. It has recently been enhanced with interactive tools for low-risk businesses and an expanded ‘frequently-asked questions’ section.
Only 134 of the 444 central government websites currently live have been given approval to stay open. However, although a Cabinet Office spokesperson confirmed to SHP that Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith had requested that the HSE website be retained “for the time being”, he added: “The list of websites that may be retained pending decisions around the single domain will continue to be reviewed from the perspective of cost-efficiencies in effective communication with the intended audiences.”
User data from the Cabinet Office show that the HSE site performs very well against other government sites – a factor that should be taken into account when any decision is made on its future. A snapshot of the statistics show that:
A Cabinet Office report released last month shows that 444 central government websites are currently open, compared with 820 last year. The streamlining process aims to reduce unnecessary spending and, at the same time, pave the way for a single government Web domain.
This domain – a recommendation made last year in a government-commissioned report by lastminute.com founder Martha Lane Fox – would host all key public information, building on the services delivered through the Directgov website, as well as offering additional features and reducing the need for individual government sites.
Rumours that the HSE website could be under threat began to circulate following publication of the minutes of the HSE’s Tyre and Rubber Industries Safety Action Group’s meeting in April. The minutes read: “HSE’s website – this may become part of the ‘DirectGov’ website, along with all other Government departments and agencies. Safety Action Group (SG) members expressed their concern at this possibility.”
On seeing these minutes, John Hamilton, head of safety, health and well-being at Leeds Metropolitan University, made some inquiries last month to the HSE, which replied: “There are no current plans to close down HSE’s website and it remains an important resource for both employers and employees.”
Indeed, the wealth of information on the website was one of the main reasons why the HSE decided to sacrifice its Infoline telephone service, which closed in September as part of an efficiency measure. Since then, the Executive has been encouraging businesses and members of the public seeking information and official guidance on health and safety to visit its website, which it describes as “a huge knowledge bank where people can access and download information free of charge and use interactive Web tools”.
The HSE website currently receives 26 million visits a year and had 11,546,036 unique users in 2010/11. It has recently been enhanced with interactive tools for low-risk businesses and an expanded ‘frequently-asked questions’ section.
Only 134 of the 444 central government websites currently live have been given approval to stay open. However, although a Cabinet Office spokesperson confirmed to SHP that Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith had requested that the HSE website be retained “for the time being”, he added: “The list of websites that may be retained pending decisions around the single domain will continue to be reviewed from the perspective of cost-efficiencies in effective communication with the intended audiences.”
User data from the Cabinet Office show that the HSE site performs very well against other government sites – a factor that should be taken into account when any decision is made on its future. A snapshot of the statistics show that:
- 72.9 per cent of users – got most, or all of what they needed;
- 81.7 per cent – said they were satisfied, or very satisfied;
- 91.2 per cent – described the site as good, or very good for ease of use;
- 79.8 per cent – described the site as good, or very good for ease of finding information;
- 83.8 per cent – described the site as having a good, or very good search facility; and
- 92.7 per cent – would definitely or probably recommend the site to others.
Work-related injury and ill health levels continue downward trend
Levels of work-related injury and ill health in Britain continued to
fall last year, according to new statistics released today (2 November).
HSE figures for the period between April 2010 and March 2011 show that there was a 6-per-cent drop in both major and serious injuries among employees. The former – which include amputations, fractures and burns – decreased from 26,268 in 2009/10 to 24,726 last year, while over-three-day injuries went down from 96,427 to 90,653. The latest figures correspond to injury rates per 100,000 workers of 99 and 363.1, respectively.
The most common causes of major injuries were slips and trips, and falls from height. Most over-three-day injuries were caused by handling, lifting, or carrying, and slips and trips. Transport and storage, construction, manufacturing and health and social work had significantly higher rates of injury than other sectors, while the occupations with the highest injury rates included process, plant and machine operation and skilled trades.
As in previous years, the construction and agricultural industries reported the highest levels of major work-related injuries, with rates per 100,000 workers of 173.2 and 221.9, respectively.
In terms of ill health, some 1.2 million people suffered from an illness caused, or made worse by their work, down from 1.3 million in 2009/10. Around half a million were new cases, i.e. arising among workers in the last 12 months, and around three-quarters of these were either musculoskeletal or stress disorders. The latter, which includes anxiety and depression, gave rise to the most working days lost.
The new figures follow the announcement in June this year of the number of workplace deaths in 2010/11, which, at 171, represented an increase of 16 per cent on the previous year’s record low.
Altogether, the figures confirm that Britain has the lowest rate of fatal occupational injuries and one of the lowest levels of work-related ill health in Europe. Its record on workplace injuries is in line with that of other large economies, such as Germany, France, Italy and Spain.
HSE chair Judith Hackitt said: “The fall in the number of people being injured by work is, of course, to be welcomed but we did also see an increase in the number of fatalities during the year. Britain can be proud that it has one of the best health and safety records in Europe but as the increase in the number of fatalities makes clear, we can never let up in our commitment to addressing the serious risks which continue to cause death and injury in workplaces.”
She concluded: “The HSE will continue to work with employers, employees and other organisations to maintain and, where necessary improve, health and safety standards. We all have a responsibility to make sure serious workplace risks are sensibly managed.”
But construction union UCATT said the figures were “a terrible indictment of the dangers faced by construction workers”. Acting general secretary George Guy added: “The rise in deaths came at a time when workloads are low. As work levels increase and new workers enter the industry, I fear that death rates will rise.”
IOSH welcomed the “slightly improved” injury and ill-health figures but emphasised there was more to be done. Said head of policy and public affairs, Richard Jones: “In the current climate it can be difficult to tell whether these figures show genuine improvement in occupational safety and health management, or whether they reflect lower levels of industrial activity during this period of austerity.”
Enforcement levels in 2010/11 – before the 35-per-cent cut to the regulator’s budget and its subsequent scaling back of enforcement in certain sectors – rose, with the number of health and safety cases prosecuted by the HSE up 9 per cent. Its conviction rate among the 551 cases that came to court was 94 per cent. The total amount of fines levied was £18.6 million, giving an average penalty on conviction of £35,938 per case. Local authorities prosecuted 129 cases – an increase of 10 per cent on the previous year.
A total of 11,020 enforcement notices was issued by the HSE – up 13 per cent on 2009/10 – with Improvement Notices showing the greatest increase (up 23 per cent).
HSE figures for the period between April 2010 and March 2011 show that there was a 6-per-cent drop in both major and serious injuries among employees. The former – which include amputations, fractures and burns – decreased from 26,268 in 2009/10 to 24,726 last year, while over-three-day injuries went down from 96,427 to 90,653. The latest figures correspond to injury rates per 100,000 workers of 99 and 363.1, respectively.
The most common causes of major injuries were slips and trips, and falls from height. Most over-three-day injuries were caused by handling, lifting, or carrying, and slips and trips. Transport and storage, construction, manufacturing and health and social work had significantly higher rates of injury than other sectors, while the occupations with the highest injury rates included process, plant and machine operation and skilled trades.
As in previous years, the construction and agricultural industries reported the highest levels of major work-related injuries, with rates per 100,000 workers of 173.2 and 221.9, respectively.
In terms of ill health, some 1.2 million people suffered from an illness caused, or made worse by their work, down from 1.3 million in 2009/10. Around half a million were new cases, i.e. arising among workers in the last 12 months, and around three-quarters of these were either musculoskeletal or stress disorders. The latter, which includes anxiety and depression, gave rise to the most working days lost.
The new figures follow the announcement in June this year of the number of workplace deaths in 2010/11, which, at 171, represented an increase of 16 per cent on the previous year’s record low.
Altogether, the figures confirm that Britain has the lowest rate of fatal occupational injuries and one of the lowest levels of work-related ill health in Europe. Its record on workplace injuries is in line with that of other large economies, such as Germany, France, Italy and Spain.
HSE chair Judith Hackitt said: “The fall in the number of people being injured by work is, of course, to be welcomed but we did also see an increase in the number of fatalities during the year. Britain can be proud that it has one of the best health and safety records in Europe but as the increase in the number of fatalities makes clear, we can never let up in our commitment to addressing the serious risks which continue to cause death and injury in workplaces.”
She concluded: “The HSE will continue to work with employers, employees and other organisations to maintain and, where necessary improve, health and safety standards. We all have a responsibility to make sure serious workplace risks are sensibly managed.”
But construction union UCATT said the figures were “a terrible indictment of the dangers faced by construction workers”. Acting general secretary George Guy added: “The rise in deaths came at a time when workloads are low. As work levels increase and new workers enter the industry, I fear that death rates will rise.”
IOSH welcomed the “slightly improved” injury and ill-health figures but emphasised there was more to be done. Said head of policy and public affairs, Richard Jones: “In the current climate it can be difficult to tell whether these figures show genuine improvement in occupational safety and health management, or whether they reflect lower levels of industrial activity during this period of austerity.”
Enforcement levels in 2010/11 – before the 35-per-cent cut to the regulator’s budget and its subsequent scaling back of enforcement in certain sectors – rose, with the number of health and safety cases prosecuted by the HSE up 9 per cent. Its conviction rate among the 551 cases that came to court was 94 per cent. The total amount of fines levied was £18.6 million, giving an average penalty on conviction of £35,938 per case. Local authorities prosecuted 129 cases – an increase of 10 per cent on the previous year.
A total of 11,020 enforcement notices was issued by the HSE – up 13 per cent on 2009/10 – with Improvement Notices showing the greatest increase (up 23 per cent).
No trade-off between protection and growth, minister tells regulators
Businesses taking on more regulatory responsibilities and enforcement
authorities giving greater recognition to companies’ efforts to comply
with the law are two of the tenets of the Government’s vision for a
better regulatory environment, Business minister Mark Prisk said
yesterday (1 November).
Addressing the Local & National Regulators annual conference, Mr Prisk called for a more mature relationship between business and regulators, as well as a more accountable and transparent system of local regulation.
Following on from Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s speech to small businesses last week, Mr Prisk highlighted the importance of regulation in creating economic growth, but insisted that a trade-off between protection and growth is not inevitable. Instead, he concentrated on proposals designed to build on the relationship between business and regulators, including:
“The challenge is to transform the regulatory landscape so that the system delivers essential protections while avoiding unnecessary interference in the day-to-day work of hard-working business people seeking to innovate and grow, and thereby delivering the jobs and wealth we need.”
Mr Prisk went on to praise the Local Better Regulation Office’s (LBRO) Primary Authority Scheme, which allows businesses spanning local-authority boundaries to nominate a particular authority under whose regulatory regime they will operate. He said he would like to see the Scheme extended to cover more businesses, more policy areas, and deliver more earned recognition for businesses.
Commenting on the minister’s speech, John Walker, national chair of the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), said: “We know that a third of FSB members view regulation as the most significant obstacle faced by their businesses and that includes inspections too. The FSB has, for many years, called for a more cooperative inspection regime, where all inspectors understand the needs of small businesses, provide advice and support, work with them in a positive way to achieve compliance, and focus on real risks, not box-ticking.
“Guidance also needs to be clearer and more accessible for small firms and, when small businesses have a proven track record of good compliance and procedures, this should be taken into account by the inspector.”
In a separate development, a new Common Approach to Competency for regulators has been launched. The framework comprises a set of agreed core skills for regulators to acquire and develop, and is supported through Web-based resources for personal development planning.
Developed by the HSE, the Regulators’ Development Needs Analysis (RDNA) has been used within health and safety regulation for more than two years. In partnership with a coalition of local and national government regulators, including the HSE, the LBRO has now built on the Executive’s work and devised the Common Approach to Competency to be used across other local-authority regulatory services functions, such as trading standards and environmental health.
Said Kevin Myers, deputy chief executive of the HSE: “Our experience shows that the RDNA approach provides more tailored and cost-effective learning and development for regulators, and an effective means to build and maintain relevant competence. This is, of course, good for them as individuals, good for the organisation, and, most importantly, good for the businesses they regulate and the people protected by it.”
The LBRO, meanwhile, is to be replaced by a new organisation within the Department for Business. The new body will retain the LBRO’s independence and draw on its staff and expertise.
Addressing the Local & National Regulators annual conference, Mr Prisk called for a more mature relationship between business and regulators, as well as a more accountable and transparent system of local regulation.
Following on from Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s speech to small businesses last week, Mr Prisk highlighted the importance of regulation in creating economic growth, but insisted that a trade-off between protection and growth is not inevitable. Instead, he concentrated on proposals designed to build on the relationship between business and regulators, including:
- more use of co-regulation – where business shares a degree of regulatory responsibility – for example, through industry bodies setting professional standards;
- greater ‘earned recognition’ – where regulators recognise business activities that support compliance and reduce intervention;
- creating Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) – where businesses and regulators are brought together to improve the transparency and accountability of local regulation; and
- clearer, more straightforward guidance – so that businesses, particularly SMEs, have greater access to clear guidance on what they need to do to comply.
“The challenge is to transform the regulatory landscape so that the system delivers essential protections while avoiding unnecessary interference in the day-to-day work of hard-working business people seeking to innovate and grow, and thereby delivering the jobs and wealth we need.”
Mr Prisk went on to praise the Local Better Regulation Office’s (LBRO) Primary Authority Scheme, which allows businesses spanning local-authority boundaries to nominate a particular authority under whose regulatory regime they will operate. He said he would like to see the Scheme extended to cover more businesses, more policy areas, and deliver more earned recognition for businesses.
Commenting on the minister’s speech, John Walker, national chair of the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), said: “We know that a third of FSB members view regulation as the most significant obstacle faced by their businesses and that includes inspections too. The FSB has, for many years, called for a more cooperative inspection regime, where all inspectors understand the needs of small businesses, provide advice and support, work with them in a positive way to achieve compliance, and focus on real risks, not box-ticking.
“Guidance also needs to be clearer and more accessible for small firms and, when small businesses have a proven track record of good compliance and procedures, this should be taken into account by the inspector.”
In a separate development, a new Common Approach to Competency for regulators has been launched. The framework comprises a set of agreed core skills for regulators to acquire and develop, and is supported through Web-based resources for personal development planning.
Developed by the HSE, the Regulators’ Development Needs Analysis (RDNA) has been used within health and safety regulation for more than two years. In partnership with a coalition of local and national government regulators, including the HSE, the LBRO has now built on the Executive’s work and devised the Common Approach to Competency to be used across other local-authority regulatory services functions, such as trading standards and environmental health.
Said Kevin Myers, deputy chief executive of the HSE: “Our experience shows that the RDNA approach provides more tailored and cost-effective learning and development for regulators, and an effective means to build and maintain relevant competence. This is, of course, good for them as individuals, good for the organisation, and, most importantly, good for the businesses they regulate and the people protected by it.”
The LBRO, meanwhile, is to be replaced by a new organisation within the Department for Business. The new body will retain the LBRO’s independence and draw on its staff and expertise.
Supermarket giant failed to address slip risks
Morrisons Supermarkets has been fined £17,500 after a worker fractured her elbow when she slipped at a store in Ipswich.
In June 2008, an environmental health officer from Ipswich Borough Council made a routine visit to a Morrisons store in Sproughton Road. She warned the store’s management about a potential slip hazard behind one of the food counters, where smooth terrazzo tiles had been installed.
The tiles are highly polished and smooth and become extremely slippery when oil or grease is split on them. The store’s risk assessment had identified the issue but had failed to introduce any control measures. The EHO recommended that the company either provide workers with protective footwear, or add a resin coating to the floor to increase slip resistance.
On 4 December 2008, an employee at the store slipped on some tiles, which were positioned behind a counter in the oven-fresh area, after there was a spillage of grease. She suffered a serious fracture to her right elbow and had to undergo three operations to repair the damage. She was unable to return to work for seven months and still suffers constant pain in her elbow.
As part of the investigation into the incident the council worked with experts from the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) to measure the slip resistance of the tiles. The results showed that there was a high risk of slips when the floor was contaminated with water, or oil. Ipswich Borough Council issued three Improvement Notices to the supermarket for failing to take action to protect workers from slipping on the tiles in three separate areas at the store.
Investigating EHO Rosemary Naylor revealed that the slip risks were present in other Morrisons stores across the country where the same tiles had been installed. She said: “This serious accident could have been easily prevented had the company acted on my previous written warning and reduced the risk of staff slipping in these areas by improving the floor surface and/or providing anti-slip footwear.
“Our investigation revealed this type of accident continues to occur in food preparation areas in their stores across the UK. I hope this prosecution sends a message to all food businesses that they need to protect their staff from slipping hazards in their kitchens."
WM Morrison Supermarkets plc appeared at Ipswich Magistrates’ Court on 5 September and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974. In addition to the fine it was ordered to pay full costs of £32,482.
In June 2008, an environmental health officer from Ipswich Borough Council made a routine visit to a Morrisons store in Sproughton Road. She warned the store’s management about a potential slip hazard behind one of the food counters, where smooth terrazzo tiles had been installed.
The tiles are highly polished and smooth and become extremely slippery when oil or grease is split on them. The store’s risk assessment had identified the issue but had failed to introduce any control measures. The EHO recommended that the company either provide workers with protective footwear, or add a resin coating to the floor to increase slip resistance.
On 4 December 2008, an employee at the store slipped on some tiles, which were positioned behind a counter in the oven-fresh area, after there was a spillage of grease. She suffered a serious fracture to her right elbow and had to undergo three operations to repair the damage. She was unable to return to work for seven months and still suffers constant pain in her elbow.
As part of the investigation into the incident the council worked with experts from the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) to measure the slip resistance of the tiles. The results showed that there was a high risk of slips when the floor was contaminated with water, or oil. Ipswich Borough Council issued three Improvement Notices to the supermarket for failing to take action to protect workers from slipping on the tiles in three separate areas at the store.
Investigating EHO Rosemary Naylor revealed that the slip risks were present in other Morrisons stores across the country where the same tiles had been installed. She said: “This serious accident could have been easily prevented had the company acted on my previous written warning and reduced the risk of staff slipping in these areas by improving the floor surface and/or providing anti-slip footwear.
“Our investigation revealed this type of accident continues to occur in food preparation areas in their stores across the UK. I hope this prosecution sends a message to all food businesses that they need to protect their staff from slipping hazards in their kitchens."
WM Morrison Supermarkets plc appeared at Ipswich Magistrates’ Court on 5 September and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974. In addition to the fine it was ordered to pay full costs of £32,482.
Wednesday, 2 November 2011
Bully Boys are Dangerous!
|
||||
|
Bully Boys are Dangerous!
November 2011
|
|||
 |
||||
|
||||
Lifting diagram followed by workers was "impossible"
A fitter suffered fatal head injuries when he became trapped between two massive nine-metre steel structures during a lifting operation.
Quarrying plant and equipment manufacturer Parker Plant was sentenced on 27 October and fined £180,000, plus £47,500 in a contribution to costs. It had pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA by not ensuring the safety of its employee, Michael Tilley, 55, at its Leicester site.
Leicester Crown Court heard that on the date of the incident, 13 December 2008, a 500-tonne concrete batching-plant installation was being manufactured for a project in Sudan.
Mr Tilley and a colleague had been attempting to load large parts of structural steelwork into a shipping container using an overhead crane. However, because the parts would not fit into the container, they were being placed on the ground next to it.
The two workers were directed to place one 1.5-tonne steel section on top of the other. As they released the lifting chains from the load, the top section slid off the bottom one and fell on Mr Tilley’s head, killing him instantly.
The court was told that Mr Tilley and his colleague had been working with an incorrect diagram that showed the two steelwork structures fitting on top of each other, which, in fact, was not possible. The structures were not strapped together, causing the load to be unstable and liable to fall unexpectedly. The work was not properly planned, or supervised and the lifting equipment provided to do the job was defective.
Principal Inspector Sue Thompson told SHP that Mr Tilley had been given no information on the size, weight, or the centre of gravity of the large structures, which would have enabled the men to sling the load correctly.
She told SHP: “It was routine practice to do difficult lifting operations and the company did not have a competent person to manage them. Mr Tilley was left to his own devices to make the best of a bad situation.”
She said the fatal incident was “utterly preventable” and occurred as a “direct result” of Parker Plant’s approach to the safety of its workers, adding that the company failed to provide the proper training for the work it was undertaking.
“If that work had been adequately planned and supervised, this tragedy would not have happened,” said PI Thompson. “Because of this company’s failures, one man lost his life and another will have to live with the after-effects of witnessing such a horrific incident."
Parker Plant expressed regret and mitigated that it had made a lot of improvements since the incident, bringing in a bigger health and safety team and introducing new systems and procedures. In a statement issued after the case, the firm said: “Mr Tilley was a long-standing, highly-valued and much-respected colleague and his death affected everyone within the company.
“Following the incident the company has worked very closely with the HSE, and working practices have been thoroughly reviewed and strengthened in attempting to ensure that this kind of accident never happens again.”
Appearance on TV led to appearance in court
A Cambridgeshire stonemasonry contractor has been in the dock after it featured in a BBC2 television programme.
Atelier 109 Ltd had quantities of hazardous stone dust at its Peterborough premises more than three times the maximum legally-safe level, a local court heard.
The dangerous practice was spotted by a viewer when the firm appeared on Monty Don’s Mastercrafts programme on BBC2 in March 2010. The individual contacted the HSE to express his concern over the inadequate precautions taken to protect workers from silica dust, which can cause serious lung diseases.
The court was told that HSE inspectors had first visited the company’s workshop on 6 May 2010, serving an Improvement Notice (IN) on 24 May, which compelled Atelier to take immediate action to cut exposure to stonemasonry dust to within the legal limit.
When a further check was made on 5 November 2010, it was clear that, although improvements had been made, a local exhaust ventilation (LEV) system at the firm had still not been thoroughly examined and tested, so a second IN was served.
However, a third visit by HSE inspectors on 16 June 2011 revealed that the recommended action had not been carried out, despite earlier tests revealing that dust quantities in the workshop were between 100 and 300 per cent the level deemed safe by law.
Alison Ashworth, the investigating HSE inspector who prosecuted the case in court, told SHP: “There is a large number of measures the firm could have taken to control exposure to stonemasonry dust. It could have considered using stone with a lower silica content; it could have segregated the very dusty processes from the rest of the workshop when power tools were being used; it could have pre-soaked the stone before cutting it; or it could have cleaned the area by vacuuming, or using damp cloths.”
The inspector said that although the company did have an extraction system in place it had not been enclosed by walls or a roof, and so it had not been effective.
The company mitigated that it had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, it had cooperated with the HSE’s investigation, and had been experiencing genuine difficulty in finding a suitable engineer to put the system right. It also said it sent larger pieces of stone to France to be cut, rather than cutting them in its workshop.
After the first IN, the company said it had taken actions to improve control. It also said it had provided storage for dust-covered respiratory protective equipment outside the workshop and had started vacuuming the area. But Inspector Ashworth said that the improvements the company made did not meet the standards she expected. The LEV system was inadequate and had only been put in place after her first visit.
She commented: "Atelier was happy to get its moment on television, but rather less quick to protect its employees from a wholly avoidable risk that can have serious consequences and cause respiratory diseases.
"We understand the pressure that small businesses are under and this company was given ample opportunity on a number of occasions to make the necessary improvements. HSE only brought this prosecution when it became clear that the company was dragging its heels and failing to treat this issue with the seriousness it deserved.”
Atelier pleaded guilty on 25 October at Peterborough Magistrates’ Court to breaching s33(1)(g) of the HSWA 1974 by contravening the requirements of an Improvement Notice. It was fined £5000 and ordered to pay full costs of £1400.
Food firm to pay £230,000 over two guard-overriding incidents
A large international food-processing company has been hit with fines totalling £230,000, following two incidents where machinery guards had been deliberately overridden, leading to serious injuries to a supervisor and a forklift-truck driver.
Norwich Crown Court, sitting on 25 October, imposed the fines on 2 Sisters Food Group after the incidents at its factory in Flixton, South Norfolk.
Julie Jarvey, the HSE inspector who investigated the case, explained to SHP that the factory dealt with the whole process from receipt of live chickens, through to slaughter, preparing and packing them, ready to be sent out to supermarkets.
In the first incident, on 1 December 2009, night-shift cleaning and hygiene supervisor Shaun Alexander, 42, had been helping a member of his team clean a machine that crushed chicken feet into fine particles to be used in animal feed.
“Part of the machine was driven by two rotating cogs, the fixed guarding over which had been removed so that chicken debris could be cleaned out,” the inspector explained. “It had been custom and practice at the firm to leave the machine running while the operatives cleaned it, but it should have been isolated when the guard was removed.”
Mr Alexander’s right hand was pulled into the cogs and crushed, causing four fingers, part of his thumb and some of his palm to be amputated.
In the second incident, a few weeks later on 11 January 2010, forklift driver Malcolm Raven, 54, suffered a broken arm. The court heard that he had been left in charge of a lairage, where live birds were held before being offloaded into crates and transported via conveyor to an outflow system, which was guarded by an interlocked mesh-fence enclosure. The guard had been permanently overridden with a bypass device.
Inspector Jarvey explained that the crates of chickens frequently jammed in the enclosure. The custom was for operatives to enter the enclosure while the machinery was still powered, using a pole, or their hands, to jiggle the crates in an attempt to unblock them. While doing exactly this, Mr Raven’s arm was pulled into the machine, trapped, and broken.
2 Sisters Food Group, based in West Bromwich, pleaded guilty to two breaches of s2(1) of HSWA 1974 by failing to ensure the safety of its employees. It was fined £90,000 for the offence regarding Shaun Alexander and £140,000 for that concerning Malcolm Raven. It was also ordered to pay full costs of £24,302.
Inspector Jarvey commented: “Both these incidents were wholly avoidable. Shaun Alexander was failed by the company’s lack of proper training, inadequate assessment of risks, absence of safe working practices, and [lack of] effective measures stopping access to dangerous equipment. He will have to live with the consequences of someone else’s mistakes for the rest of his life.
She added: “Malcolm Raven’s injuries could have been much more serious. Similar failings were shown up in his case, made worse by the fact that he hadn’t been properly trained for a task that was outside his normal working duties.”
In sentencing the case, Judge Peter Jacobs said: “The only control measures the company had in place were safety rules requiring operatives to keep hoses clear of moving parts. No suitable instruction had been given in dealing with the wedged items. There were no provisions to ensure that the machine was properly isolated.”
The company said in mitigation that Mr Alexander may have been negligent. It had done all it could to rehabilitate him, had a good safety record, and made genuine efforts to remedy the defect. The judge did not conclude that Mr Alexander was negligent but said: “The whole purpose of guarding is to ensure that employees, negligent or not, do not come into contact with moving machinery.”
The judge commented that the process in the second incident involved such force that it is vital the machine is guarded, or gated, especially as the ramming and movement on the conveyor belt is computer-controlled and sometimes unpredictable.
Matters were further aggravated by the company having a previous conviction for a similar incident at a factory in Stowmarket, which resulted in a £95,000 fine.
Norwich Crown Court, sitting on 25 October, imposed the fines on 2 Sisters Food Group after the incidents at its factory in Flixton, South Norfolk.
Julie Jarvey, the HSE inspector who investigated the case, explained to SHP that the factory dealt with the whole process from receipt of live chickens, through to slaughter, preparing and packing them, ready to be sent out to supermarkets.
In the first incident, on 1 December 2009, night-shift cleaning and hygiene supervisor Shaun Alexander, 42, had been helping a member of his team clean a machine that crushed chicken feet into fine particles to be used in animal feed.
“Part of the machine was driven by two rotating cogs, the fixed guarding over which had been removed so that chicken debris could be cleaned out,” the inspector explained. “It had been custom and practice at the firm to leave the machine running while the operatives cleaned it, but it should have been isolated when the guard was removed.”
Mr Alexander’s right hand was pulled into the cogs and crushed, causing four fingers, part of his thumb and some of his palm to be amputated.
In the second incident, a few weeks later on 11 January 2010, forklift driver Malcolm Raven, 54, suffered a broken arm. The court heard that he had been left in charge of a lairage, where live birds were held before being offloaded into crates and transported via conveyor to an outflow system, which was guarded by an interlocked mesh-fence enclosure. The guard had been permanently overridden with a bypass device.
Inspector Jarvey explained that the crates of chickens frequently jammed in the enclosure. The custom was for operatives to enter the enclosure while the machinery was still powered, using a pole, or their hands, to jiggle the crates in an attempt to unblock them. While doing exactly this, Mr Raven’s arm was pulled into the machine, trapped, and broken.
2 Sisters Food Group, based in West Bromwich, pleaded guilty to two breaches of s2(1) of HSWA 1974 by failing to ensure the safety of its employees. It was fined £90,000 for the offence regarding Shaun Alexander and £140,000 for that concerning Malcolm Raven. It was also ordered to pay full costs of £24,302.
Inspector Jarvey commented: “Both these incidents were wholly avoidable. Shaun Alexander was failed by the company’s lack of proper training, inadequate assessment of risks, absence of safe working practices, and [lack of] effective measures stopping access to dangerous equipment. He will have to live with the consequences of someone else’s mistakes for the rest of his life.
She added: “Malcolm Raven’s injuries could have been much more serious. Similar failings were shown up in his case, made worse by the fact that he hadn’t been properly trained for a task that was outside his normal working duties.”
In sentencing the case, Judge Peter Jacobs said: “The only control measures the company had in place were safety rules requiring operatives to keep hoses clear of moving parts. No suitable instruction had been given in dealing with the wedged items. There were no provisions to ensure that the machine was properly isolated.”
The company said in mitigation that Mr Alexander may have been negligent. It had done all it could to rehabilitate him, had a good safety record, and made genuine efforts to remedy the defect. The judge did not conclude that Mr Alexander was negligent but said: “The whole purpose of guarding is to ensure that employees, negligent or not, do not come into contact with moving machinery.”
The judge commented that the process in the second incident involved such force that it is vital the machine is guarded, or gated, especially as the ramming and movement on the conveyor belt is computer-controlled and sometimes unpredictable.
Matters were further aggravated by the company having a previous conviction for a similar incident at a factory in Stowmarket, which resulted in a £95,000 fine.
Wednesday, 19 October 2011
Exeter firm fined over worker's injury
A visiting worker suffered severe leg injuries when he was hit by a reversing telehandler vehicle at a waste transfer site near Exeter.
Andrew Grist, of Newton Abbot, suffered a detached calf muscle, a near severed toe and broken bones in his foot and was off work for six months after the incident at Kenbury Wood Waste Management Centre.
Leese's Ltd, the site operator, was fined £4,500 and ordered to pay £818 costs by Exeter magistrates today (18 October) following a prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
The court heard that the telehandler was one of a number of similar vehicles working on the site. The telehandler had a blindspot because of its size, but there was no device, such as a reversing camera, fitted to the vehicle which could have prevented the incident. Site operators are required to ensure drivers of vehicles which might cause a risk of injury have all round visibility.
Mr Grist had got out of his vehicle on the site, believing he had received a "thumbs-up" signal from the operator of the machine emptying his lorry. He understood this to mean he could leave the site and get his lorry ready to go. It was at this point he was struck by the telehandler.
HSE Inspector, Simon Jones, speaking after the hearing, said:
"This incident could easily have resulted in a fatality at the site. All employers should ensure that vehicles they provide for use by their employees do not have blind spots.
"Site operators should ensure that only vehicles that have had blind spots eliminated are allowed to operate on their site."
Leese's Ltd, of Oak Tree Place, Manaton Close, Matford Business Park, Exeter pleaded guilty to a breach of Regulation 28 (e) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.
Andrew Grist, of Newton Abbot, suffered a detached calf muscle, a near severed toe and broken bones in his foot and was off work for six months after the incident at Kenbury Wood Waste Management Centre.
Leese's Ltd, the site operator, was fined £4,500 and ordered to pay £818 costs by Exeter magistrates today (18 October) following a prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
The court heard that the telehandler was one of a number of similar vehicles working on the site. The telehandler had a blindspot because of its size, but there was no device, such as a reversing camera, fitted to the vehicle which could have prevented the incident. Site operators are required to ensure drivers of vehicles which might cause a risk of injury have all round visibility.
Mr Grist had got out of his vehicle on the site, believing he had received a "thumbs-up" signal from the operator of the machine emptying his lorry. He understood this to mean he could leave the site and get his lorry ready to go. It was at this point he was struck by the telehandler.
HSE Inspector, Simon Jones, speaking after the hearing, said:
"This incident could easily have resulted in a fatality at the site. All employers should ensure that vehicles they provide for use by their employees do not have blind spots.
"Site operators should ensure that only vehicles that have had blind spots eliminated are allowed to operate on their site."
Leese's Ltd, of Oak Tree Place, Manaton Close, Matford Business Park, Exeter pleaded guilty to a breach of Regulation 28 (e) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.
Proposals on Revised Control of Asbestos Regulations
This consultation sets out HSE's proposals to introduce revised Control of Asbestos Regulations to implement the changes required to comply with the European Commission's reasoned opinion on the UK Government's transposition of Directive 83/477/EEC as amended by 2003/18/EC on the protection of workers from the risks of exposure to asbestos at work. The reasoned opinion confirms the European Commission's view that the UK has not fully implemented Article 3(3) of the Directive which provides for the exemption of some types of lower risk work with asbestos from three requirements of the Directive: notification of work; medical examinations; and record keeping.
The required changes mean in future fewer types of lower risk work will be exempt from the three requirements. Views are sought on: the proposals; the guidance to be produced to explain how the changes will work in practice; and the impact on business.
The required changes mean in future fewer types of lower risk work will be exempt from the three requirements. Views are sought on: the proposals; the guidance to be produced to explain how the changes will work in practice; and the impact on business.
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
New portal for finding CDM-compliant construction contractors
Safety Schemes in Procurement (SSIP) has introduced a new internet portal that aims to improve standards of health and safety in the construction industry and simplify the process of contractor assessment.
SSIP says the portal provides instant verification of thousands of construction contractors who have successfully completed a rigorous CDM 2007 Core Criteria Stage 1 assessment. Contractors that have been assessed by an SSIP scheme can demonstrate to any client, or main contractor that they meet the recognised standard for health and safety performance without filling in additional questionnaires.
Unlimited access to the portal will cost £100 a year. SSIP says all revenues from the portal will be ploughed back into improving its service to the construction industry.
Simon Mantle, chair of SSIP, said: “Clients seeking complete assurance that a contractor is CDM-compliant can quickly type the company’s name into the portal and check if they hold current certification from an SSIP member. This saves time and cost for the client company, enabling them to get on with Stage 2 assessments.”
According to SSIP, an estimated 5000 clients collect information on 180,000 contractors every year, using more than 2 million questionnaires, at a cost to industry of £1 billion. “The streamlined SSIP process and our new portal will save everybody time and money while providing assurance that robust and consistent assessment processes have been followed,” Mantle said.
The SSIP portal has been developed and is maintained by SSIP member Altius Vendor Assessment, which also provides the online payment process. Another scheme member, Exor Management Services, has provided the administration process for handling customer log-ins.
SSIP says the portal provides instant verification of thousands of construction contractors who have successfully completed a rigorous CDM 2007 Core Criteria Stage 1 assessment. Contractors that have been assessed by an SSIP scheme can demonstrate to any client, or main contractor that they meet the recognised standard for health and safety performance without filling in additional questionnaires.
Unlimited access to the portal will cost £100 a year. SSIP says all revenues from the portal will be ploughed back into improving its service to the construction industry.
Simon Mantle, chair of SSIP, said: “Clients seeking complete assurance that a contractor is CDM-compliant can quickly type the company’s name into the portal and check if they hold current certification from an SSIP member. This saves time and cost for the client company, enabling them to get on with Stage 2 assessments.”
According to SSIP, an estimated 5000 clients collect information on 180,000 contractors every year, using more than 2 million questionnaires, at a cost to industry of £1 billion. “The streamlined SSIP process and our new portal will save everybody time and money while providing assurance that robust and consistent assessment processes have been followed,” Mantle said.
The SSIP portal has been developed and is maintained by SSIP member Altius Vendor Assessment, which also provides the online payment process. Another scheme member, Exor Management Services, has provided the administration process for handling customer log-ins.
£144,000 to pay after “tragic death” of worker in jammed press
A County Durham car-components manufacturer has been fined £100,000 after a maintenance engineer was crushed to death whilst clearing a jam on a production line.
Paul Clark, 52, a multi-skilled fitter at Tallent Automotive, died on 8 July 2009 after becoming trapped between a moving carriage and the support structure at the end of its tracks while working alone in an isolated area of the plant.
Durham Crown Court heard on 30 September that Mr Clark had been working in the press shop of the company’s Newton Aycliffe plant, which manufactures parts for the car industry.
The Court was told that a de-stacker – a pneumatically-powered carriage that is part of a large, 2500-tonne press, which produces chassis components – had jammed and stopped halfway along its tracks. The carriage was used to move empty magazines previously containing metal blanks away from the press. Mr Clark had been attempting to find the fault with the pneumatics and had opened the interlocked safety gates to gain access inside the fenced enclosure of the machine.
However, although opening these gates isolated the equipment from the electricity supply, it did not isolate the pneumatic power element of the machine. Moreover, the equipment for controlling movement of the carriage was located between the tracks the carriage ran on, which meant Mr Clark had to work in an extremely dangerous area to try to establish the cause of the jam. He was trapped when the de-stacker moved suddenly and died as a result of traumatic asphyxia due to crush injuries.
Martin Baillie, the HSE inspector who investigated the case, told SHP there had been no safe procedures for carrying out work within the de-stacker area. Although electrical hazards were recognised by the company, risks from the pneumatically-operated equipment were not.
The inspector said: “This tragic death could have been avoided had the company put in place a safe system of work that ensured that risks from all energy sources had been identified and made safe before employees could gain access to the enclosure where the equipment was located.
"It is vitally important that safe isolation procedures are developed and used before attempting to make repairs to equipment.
"In this instance, Tallent Automotive instead relied on the training and experience of individuals. This was a significant cause of the incident that led to Mr Clark’s death."
The inspector concluded: “This is an engineering company. They should know about these things. They had the expertise and knowledge, but did not recognise the hazards associated with the de-stacker being pneumatically energised. Other workers also routinely enter the enclosure, so they too were at risk.”
The firm said in mitigation that the company who had manufactured the de-stacker unit had gone out of business during the machine’s installation. Consequently, Tallent had not received the pneumatic drawings, information and documentation that would have informed its risk assessment and which it would have been able to give to workers to show how the pneumatic supply worked and how they could safely make any necessary adjustments.
Tallent said took safety very seriously, had a good safety record and employed a full-time health and safety manager. It has since adapted the equipment so that nothing like this can happen again.
Tallent Automotive was fined £100,000 after pleading guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974 by failing to ensure its employees’ safety. The company was also ordered to pay a contribution to costs of £44,000.
Paul Clark, 52, a multi-skilled fitter at Tallent Automotive, died on 8 July 2009 after becoming trapped between a moving carriage and the support structure at the end of its tracks while working alone in an isolated area of the plant.
Durham Crown Court heard on 30 September that Mr Clark had been working in the press shop of the company’s Newton Aycliffe plant, which manufactures parts for the car industry.
The Court was told that a de-stacker – a pneumatically-powered carriage that is part of a large, 2500-tonne press, which produces chassis components – had jammed and stopped halfway along its tracks. The carriage was used to move empty magazines previously containing metal blanks away from the press. Mr Clark had been attempting to find the fault with the pneumatics and had opened the interlocked safety gates to gain access inside the fenced enclosure of the machine.
However, although opening these gates isolated the equipment from the electricity supply, it did not isolate the pneumatic power element of the machine. Moreover, the equipment for controlling movement of the carriage was located between the tracks the carriage ran on, which meant Mr Clark had to work in an extremely dangerous area to try to establish the cause of the jam. He was trapped when the de-stacker moved suddenly and died as a result of traumatic asphyxia due to crush injuries.
Martin Baillie, the HSE inspector who investigated the case, told SHP there had been no safe procedures for carrying out work within the de-stacker area. Although electrical hazards were recognised by the company, risks from the pneumatically-operated equipment were not.
The inspector said: “This tragic death could have been avoided had the company put in place a safe system of work that ensured that risks from all energy sources had been identified and made safe before employees could gain access to the enclosure where the equipment was located.
"It is vitally important that safe isolation procedures are developed and used before attempting to make repairs to equipment.
"In this instance, Tallent Automotive instead relied on the training and experience of individuals. This was a significant cause of the incident that led to Mr Clark’s death."
The inspector concluded: “This is an engineering company. They should know about these things. They had the expertise and knowledge, but did not recognise the hazards associated with the de-stacker being pneumatically energised. Other workers also routinely enter the enclosure, so they too were at risk.”
The firm said in mitigation that the company who had manufactured the de-stacker unit had gone out of business during the machine’s installation. Consequently, Tallent had not received the pneumatic drawings, information and documentation that would have informed its risk assessment and which it would have been able to give to workers to show how the pneumatic supply worked and how they could safely make any necessary adjustments.
Tallent said took safety very seriously, had a good safety record and employed a full-time health and safety manager. It has since adapted the equipment so that nothing like this can happen again.
Tallent Automotive was fined £100,000 after pleading guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974 by failing to ensure its employees’ safety. The company was also ordered to pay a contribution to costs of £44,000.
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Retail "Wake Up Call for M&S"
High-street retailer Marks and Spencer and two of its contractors have been convicted for potentially exposing workers and members of the public to asbestos.
In 2006, the HSE received a complaint from an electrician who had been involved in the refurbishment of a Marks and Spencer store in Reading. He informed the HSE that he believed asbestos removal work was not being carried out safely. When HSE inspectors visited the store they found that asbestos-containing materials were present in ceiling tiles that were being removed from the store. Styles and Wood Ltd was the principal contractor for the overall refurbishment, while PA Realisations Ltd (formerly Pectel Ltd) was contracted to remove the asbestos.
The work was carried out at night in enclosures on the shop floor in order to remove the tiles bit by bit, to allow the shop to stay open to the public each day. During the investigation inspectors found evidence that asbestos had been spread around the store. The HSE alleged that Marks and Spencer had failed to allocate sufficient time and space for the asbestos removal.
The investigation also learned that PA Realisations had failed to ensure that the protective tent, which it used to prevent asbestos from spreading when removing the tiles, was in a suitable condition. Workers should have tested the tent by filling it with smoke to see if there were any gaps that would allow asbestos to escape. Instead, they used a glass vial to let out a small amount of smoke, which made it harder to identify if any fumes had leaked out. Although the solicitor for Marks and Spencer said the test was carried out differently.
In February 2007, the HSE visited a Marks and Spencer store in Bournemouth, which was also being refurbished. It found that the principal contractor at the store, Wilmott Dixon Construction Ltd, had failed to plan, manage and monitor the removal of asbestos materials. It had also failed to carry out an extensive asbestos survey and inspectors found evidence that asbestos had been spread around the store.
Earlier this week, on 18 July, Willmott Dixon Construction was found guilty, following a trial at Winchester Crown Court, of breaching s2(1) and s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. The charges relate to refurbishment work it carried out at the Bournemouth store.
Marks and Spencer plc was found guilty of the same breaches, in relation to the work carried out at its Reading store from 24 April to 13 November 2006.
PA Realisations was also found guilty for contravening reg. 15 of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations, on account of the work it carried out at the Reading store.
At an earlier hearing, Styles & Wood Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) and s3(1) of the HSWA 1974, in relation to its role at the Reading store.
All four companies will be sentenced on 26 September 2011.
After the hearing, HSE Principal Inspector Charles Gilby said: “This prosecution exposed serious failures by Marks and Spencer and its contractors that we hope others will learn from. This verdict is a wake-up call for the retail industry. Client accountability and responsibility is at the heart of this case, because asbestos can and does kill.
“There are very real lessons here for the country's large retailers and other organisations engaging in programmes of refurbishment, that they must allow enough time and resource to carry out work without endangering anyone.”
A fifth company, Clarence Contractors Ltd, was prosecuted and sentenced in relation to asbestos removal at a Marks and Spencer store in Plymouth. The company, which at the time of sentence was in liquidation, appeared in court on 12 January 2010 and pleaded guilty to breaching reg. 10 and reg. 15 of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002, for offences committed between September 2004 and September 2006. It also pleaded guilty to contravening reg. 11 and reg. 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, in relation to asbestos removal work it carried out at the Bournemouth store. It was fined £50 for each offence and £100 in costs.
In 2006, the HSE received a complaint from an electrician who had been involved in the refurbishment of a Marks and Spencer store in Reading. He informed the HSE that he believed asbestos removal work was not being carried out safely. When HSE inspectors visited the store they found that asbestos-containing materials were present in ceiling tiles that were being removed from the store. Styles and Wood Ltd was the principal contractor for the overall refurbishment, while PA Realisations Ltd (formerly Pectel Ltd) was contracted to remove the asbestos.
The work was carried out at night in enclosures on the shop floor in order to remove the tiles bit by bit, to allow the shop to stay open to the public each day. During the investigation inspectors found evidence that asbestos had been spread around the store. The HSE alleged that Marks and Spencer had failed to allocate sufficient time and space for the asbestos removal.
The investigation also learned that PA Realisations had failed to ensure that the protective tent, which it used to prevent asbestos from spreading when removing the tiles, was in a suitable condition. Workers should have tested the tent by filling it with smoke to see if there were any gaps that would allow asbestos to escape. Instead, they used a glass vial to let out a small amount of smoke, which made it harder to identify if any fumes had leaked out. Although the solicitor for Marks and Spencer said the test was carried out differently.
In February 2007, the HSE visited a Marks and Spencer store in Bournemouth, which was also being refurbished. It found that the principal contractor at the store, Wilmott Dixon Construction Ltd, had failed to plan, manage and monitor the removal of asbestos materials. It had also failed to carry out an extensive asbestos survey and inspectors found evidence that asbestos had been spread around the store.
Earlier this week, on 18 July, Willmott Dixon Construction was found guilty, following a trial at Winchester Crown Court, of breaching s2(1) and s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. The charges relate to refurbishment work it carried out at the Bournemouth store.
Marks and Spencer plc was found guilty of the same breaches, in relation to the work carried out at its Reading store from 24 April to 13 November 2006.
PA Realisations was also found guilty for contravening reg. 15 of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations, on account of the work it carried out at the Reading store.
At an earlier hearing, Styles & Wood Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) and s3(1) of the HSWA 1974, in relation to its role at the Reading store.
All four companies will be sentenced on 26 September 2011.
After the hearing, HSE Principal Inspector Charles Gilby said: “This prosecution exposed serious failures by Marks and Spencer and its contractors that we hope others will learn from. This verdict is a wake-up call for the retail industry. Client accountability and responsibility is at the heart of this case, because asbestos can and does kill.
“There are very real lessons here for the country's large retailers and other organisations engaging in programmes of refurbishment, that they must allow enough time and resource to carry out work without endangering anyone.”
A fifth company, Clarence Contractors Ltd, was prosecuted and sentenced in relation to asbestos removal at a Marks and Spencer store in Plymouth. The company, which at the time of sentence was in liquidation, appeared in court on 12 January 2010 and pleaded guilty to breaching reg. 10 and reg. 15 of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002, for offences committed between September 2004 and September 2006. It also pleaded guilty to contravening reg. 11 and reg. 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006, in relation to asbestos removal work it carried out at the Bournemouth store. It was fined £50 for each offence and £100 in costs.
Monday, 18 April 2011
Asbestos exposure during nightclub refurbishment
A property developer put his workers at risk by failing to identify the presence of asbestos before allowing them to start work on a nightclub in Wrexham.
Michael Murton, 36, of Bewdley, near Kidderminster, instructed contractors to remove sprayed coating containing amosite (brown asbestos) from steel beams while refurbishing the nightclub. The workers were exposed to the deadly substance between 11 and 24 February 2010 at 33-35 Brook Street, Wrexham.
A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found Mr Murton had failed to survey the property before the work started. This led to the unlicensed and uncontrolled removal of the asbestos-containing material and its subsequent spread in and around the building.
Michael Murton, of Bewdley, near Kidderminster previously pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 5, 8(1), 11(1)(a) and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 at Mold Magistrates Court.
He also pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to Regulation 19 of the Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005, two duty of care offences contrary to Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. He also pleaded guilty to a charge of treating and disposing of asbestos in a manner likely to cause harm to human health or pollution of the environment contrary to Section 33 (1)(c) Environmental Protection Act 1990. These charges were brought by the Environment Agency Wales.
At Mold Crown Court today, Murton was given a suspended sentence of eight months for breaching the Control of Asbestos Regulations. He was also given a 12 month suspended sentence for breaching Section 33 (1)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and eight months suspended sentence for the offence contrary to Regulation 19 of the Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005.
Mr Murton was also ordered to carry out 200 hours of community service and to pay costs of £10,000 over two years.
HSE Inspector, Debbie John, said:
"This is a serious incident and one that could have easily been avoided.
"Had Mr Murton surveyed the property for the presence of asbestos prior to the start of construction work, the sprayed coating would have been identified and arrangements made for its controlled removal by an HSE-licensed contractor.
"Instead, Mr Murton; construction workers; waste management contractors and others were exposed to potentially deadly asbestos-containing materials."
Speaking after the case, Environment Agency Wales officer Sally Connah, said:
"There are specific rules and laws around the disposal of any waste, but specifically hazardous substances like asbestos. If we do not enforce these laws people's health and the environment can be put at risk.
Michael Murton, 36, of Bewdley, near Kidderminster, instructed contractors to remove sprayed coating containing amosite (brown asbestos) from steel beams while refurbishing the nightclub. The workers were exposed to the deadly substance between 11 and 24 February 2010 at 33-35 Brook Street, Wrexham.
A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found Mr Murton had failed to survey the property before the work started. This led to the unlicensed and uncontrolled removal of the asbestos-containing material and its subsequent spread in and around the building.
Michael Murton, of Bewdley, near Kidderminster previously pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 5, 8(1), 11(1)(a) and 16 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 at Mold Magistrates Court.
He also pleaded guilty to an offence contrary to Regulation 19 of the Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005, two duty of care offences contrary to Section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. He also pleaded guilty to a charge of treating and disposing of asbestos in a manner likely to cause harm to human health or pollution of the environment contrary to Section 33 (1)(c) Environmental Protection Act 1990. These charges were brought by the Environment Agency Wales.
At Mold Crown Court today, Murton was given a suspended sentence of eight months for breaching the Control of Asbestos Regulations. He was also given a 12 month suspended sentence for breaching Section 33 (1)(c) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and eight months suspended sentence for the offence contrary to Regulation 19 of the Hazardous Waste Regulations 2005.
Mr Murton was also ordered to carry out 200 hours of community service and to pay costs of £10,000 over two years.
HSE Inspector, Debbie John, said:
"This is a serious incident and one that could have easily been avoided.
"Had Mr Murton surveyed the property for the presence of asbestos prior to the start of construction work, the sprayed coating would have been identified and arrangements made for its controlled removal by an HSE-licensed contractor.
"Instead, Mr Murton; construction workers; waste management contractors and others were exposed to potentially deadly asbestos-containing materials."
Speaking after the case, Environment Agency Wales officer Sally Connah, said:
"There are specific rules and laws around the disposal of any waste, but specifically hazardous substances like asbestos. If we do not enforce these laws people's health and the environment can be put at risk.
Thursday, 31 March 2011
Reforms proposed for “out of kilter” civil-justice system
30 March 2011
The Government is pushing ahead with plans to reform ‘no win no fee’ deals and overhaul the civil-justice system, as part of its efforts to release businesses from the fear of a compensation culture.
In a new consultation launched yesterday (29 March) and aimed at creating a simpler, quicker and more proportionate civil-justice regime, the Government is proposing to expand the use of an online system for resolving road-traffic accident personal-injury claims of up to £10,000, by making it available to process employers’ liability and public liability personal-injury claims.
The Government also plans to introduce automatic referral to mediation in small-claims cases, automatic referral to mediation-awareness sessions in higher-value cases, and consulting on making mediated settlements enforceable by courts.
Other proposals include raising the maximum value for small claims from £5000 to £15,000, enabling more cases to be heard through the small-claims process rather than through a costly trial.
Announcing the plans, Justice secretary Kenneth Clarke said: “With no major reform for 15 years, the civil-justice system has got out of kilter. Businesses and other people who have been sued can find that spiralling legal costs, slow court processes, unnecessary litigation, and the ‘no win no fee’ structures, which mean greater payments to lawyers than to claimants, are setting them back millions of pounds each year.”
According to the Government, statistics provided by insurers show that in 1999 claimant solicitors’ costs were equivalent to just over half the damages agreed, or awarded. By last year, however, average claimant costs represented 142 per cent of the sums received by injured victims.
Seeking reform in this area, the Government also confirmed it would be implementing Lord Justice Jackson’s blueprint to reform the cost of civil litigation. These plans include:
•Abolishing recoverability of success fees and associated costs in ‘no win no fee’ conditional-fee agreements. Under the current regime, defendants must pay these additional costs if they lose. Under the reforms, claimants will pay their lawyer’s success fee, and will therefore take an interest in controlling the costs being incurred on their behalf.
•Allowing damages-based agreements (also known as contingency fees) in litigation before the courts. These are another form of ‘no win no fee’ agreement, under which lawyers can take a proportion of the claimants’ damages in fees, and would increase the funding options available to claimants.
•Introducing a 10-per-cent increase in general damages, and introducing a mechanism to protect the vast majority of personal-injury claimants from paying a winning defendant’s costs.
Justice minister Jonathan Djanogly said the reforms would help tackle “the perverse situation in which lawyers can be awarded a greater proportion of payouts than claimants” and “help put an end to the fear of a compensation culture”.
Following the announcement, EEF head of health & safety, Steve Pointer, said: “This is a welcome step forward in delivering a system that reflects a fair balance between rewarding those who have been harmed, and the significant efforts of companies to manage risks. The current system of high legal costs for small claims is encouraging poor claims and is failing to meet the needs of genuine claimants, insurers and employers.”
He added: “Today’s reforms must now be followed by further action. The HSE is already doing a great deal to reduce the paperwork burden imposed by regulation, and this needs to be followed through into the compensation system, where straightforward changes could make a real difference.”
But TUC general secretary Brendan Barber attacked the proposals, saying: “This review has nothing to do with justice. It is simply lining the pockets of insurers at the expense of claimants seeking compensation for injuries caused by the negligence of others.”
The Government is pushing ahead with plans to reform ‘no win no fee’ deals and overhaul the civil-justice system, as part of its efforts to release businesses from the fear of a compensation culture.
In a new consultation launched yesterday (29 March) and aimed at creating a simpler, quicker and more proportionate civil-justice regime, the Government is proposing to expand the use of an online system for resolving road-traffic accident personal-injury claims of up to £10,000, by making it available to process employers’ liability and public liability personal-injury claims.
The Government also plans to introduce automatic referral to mediation in small-claims cases, automatic referral to mediation-awareness sessions in higher-value cases, and consulting on making mediated settlements enforceable by courts.
Other proposals include raising the maximum value for small claims from £5000 to £15,000, enabling more cases to be heard through the small-claims process rather than through a costly trial.
Announcing the plans, Justice secretary Kenneth Clarke said: “With no major reform for 15 years, the civil-justice system has got out of kilter. Businesses and other people who have been sued can find that spiralling legal costs, slow court processes, unnecessary litigation, and the ‘no win no fee’ structures, which mean greater payments to lawyers than to claimants, are setting them back millions of pounds each year.”
According to the Government, statistics provided by insurers show that in 1999 claimant solicitors’ costs were equivalent to just over half the damages agreed, or awarded. By last year, however, average claimant costs represented 142 per cent of the sums received by injured victims.
Seeking reform in this area, the Government also confirmed it would be implementing Lord Justice Jackson’s blueprint to reform the cost of civil litigation. These plans include:
•Abolishing recoverability of success fees and associated costs in ‘no win no fee’ conditional-fee agreements. Under the current regime, defendants must pay these additional costs if they lose. Under the reforms, claimants will pay their lawyer’s success fee, and will therefore take an interest in controlling the costs being incurred on their behalf.
•Allowing damages-based agreements (also known as contingency fees) in litigation before the courts. These are another form of ‘no win no fee’ agreement, under which lawyers can take a proportion of the claimants’ damages in fees, and would increase the funding options available to claimants.
•Introducing a 10-per-cent increase in general damages, and introducing a mechanism to protect the vast majority of personal-injury claimants from paying a winning defendant’s costs.
Justice minister Jonathan Djanogly said the reforms would help tackle “the perverse situation in which lawyers can be awarded a greater proportion of payouts than claimants” and “help put an end to the fear of a compensation culture”.
Following the announcement, EEF head of health & safety, Steve Pointer, said: “This is a welcome step forward in delivering a system that reflects a fair balance between rewarding those who have been harmed, and the significant efforts of companies to manage risks. The current system of high legal costs for small claims is encouraging poor claims and is failing to meet the needs of genuine claimants, insurers and employers.”
He added: “Today’s reforms must now be followed by further action. The HSE is already doing a great deal to reduce the paperwork burden imposed by regulation, and this needs to be followed through into the compensation system, where straightforward changes could make a real difference.”
But TUC general secretary Brendan Barber attacked the proposals, saying: “This review has nothing to do with justice. It is simply lining the pockets of insurers at the expense of claimants seeking compensation for injuries caused by the negligence of others.”
Thursday, 17 March 2011
Planning loading and unloading of vehicles
Three million people in Great Britain work on or near vehicles as part of their regular job. Getting on and off a vehicle to carry out loading/unloading operations and working at height on the vehicle are often viewed as incidental to the main job. Because of this, the risks involved may not be properly considered by both workers and their managers. The economic and human cost of the falls from vehicles that we know about was over £36 million in 2004/05.
Careful assessment of the tasks involved and implementation of simple and cost-effective safety controls can reduce the risk of falls from vehicles significantly and avoid potential losses for your company.
Get help from the workers who use the vehicle – they know how the job is really done and normally have good ideas about how to make it safer and more efficient.
You must think in terms of a hierarchy of controls:
plan to avoid work at height where you can;
where you can’t, make sure you use work equipment to prevent falls:
first choice – vehicle-based systems;
second choice – on-site systems;
where the risk of a fall can’t be eliminated, use work equipment to minimise the distance and consequences of a fall;
always consider measures that protect everyone at risk (eg platforms and guardrails) before measures that only protect the individual (eg safety harness).
Careful assessment of the tasks involved and implementation of simple and cost-effective safety controls can reduce the risk of falls from vehicles significantly and avoid potential losses for your company.
Get help from the workers who use the vehicle – they know how the job is really done and normally have good ideas about how to make it safer and more efficient.
You must think in terms of a hierarchy of controls:
plan to avoid work at height where you can;
where you can’t, make sure you use work equipment to prevent falls:
first choice – vehicle-based systems;
second choice – on-site systems;
where the risk of a fall can’t be eliminated, use work equipment to minimise the distance and consequences of a fall;
always consider measures that protect everyone at risk (eg platforms and guardrails) before measures that only protect the individual (eg safety harness).
Unprotected Blade
A theme park worker severely injured his right hand as he was cutting wood using an unguarded rotating saw blade.
Steven Gardiner was working at Loudoun Castle Theme Park in Ayrshire cutting up sheets of plywood on 29 October 2009.
As the saw he normally used was not available for this task due to an operating fault, Mr Gardiner was using a table mounted circular saw that he had never used before. When setting up the saw he saw he noticed that the blade guard was not attached to the riving knife but, as he did not know how to fit this guard he left it to one side.
Mr Gardiner started working with a colleague, but after he left he decided to carry on alone as he only had a few sheets of plywood left to cut. As he pushed a long strip of wood through the blade using both hands to keep it straight, his right hand slipped forward and came into contact with the blade, cutting it badly.
He bound his hand up with his t-shirt and called for help. He was taken to hospital, where he needed a six hour bone graft operation to save his fingers. Doctors used bone from his hip and wire to rebuild his thumb, fingers and tendons. He needed two further operations to have metal plates inserted into his hand and remove scar tissue. He will need further surgery.
Mr Gardiner still cannot bend his thumb and doctors do not know if full movement to his fingers will ever return. He has difficulty tying laces and doing buttons, cannot clench his hand and has had to give up his hobby of DIY. Before the park closed, he was moved from his former post as a maintenance worker to an office based role as he was no longer able to carry out his previous duties as a maintenance worker.
Today at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court Parkware Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) and (2) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and were fined £5,000.
HSE Inspector Eve Macready said:
"This was an entirely avoidable incident which will affect Mr Gardiner for the rest of his life. Not only has he had to change his line of work, but he has also had to give up a hobby and has difficulty performing tasks as simple as tying his shoelaces.
"Mr Gardiner's injuries would not have happened if the blade guard had been fitted. Employers have a duty to make sure machinery made available as work equipment is safe."
Steven Gardiner was working at Loudoun Castle Theme Park in Ayrshire cutting up sheets of plywood on 29 October 2009.
As the saw he normally used was not available for this task due to an operating fault, Mr Gardiner was using a table mounted circular saw that he had never used before. When setting up the saw he saw he noticed that the blade guard was not attached to the riving knife but, as he did not know how to fit this guard he left it to one side.
Mr Gardiner started working with a colleague, but after he left he decided to carry on alone as he only had a few sheets of plywood left to cut. As he pushed a long strip of wood through the blade using both hands to keep it straight, his right hand slipped forward and came into contact with the blade, cutting it badly.
He bound his hand up with his t-shirt and called for help. He was taken to hospital, where he needed a six hour bone graft operation to save his fingers. Doctors used bone from his hip and wire to rebuild his thumb, fingers and tendons. He needed two further operations to have metal plates inserted into his hand and remove scar tissue. He will need further surgery.
Mr Gardiner still cannot bend his thumb and doctors do not know if full movement to his fingers will ever return. He has difficulty tying laces and doing buttons, cannot clench his hand and has had to give up his hobby of DIY. Before the park closed, he was moved from his former post as a maintenance worker to an office based role as he was no longer able to carry out his previous duties as a maintenance worker.
Today at Kilmarnock Sheriff Court Parkware Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) and (2) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and were fined £5,000.
HSE Inspector Eve Macready said:
"This was an entirely avoidable incident which will affect Mr Gardiner for the rest of his life. Not only has he had to change his line of work, but he has also had to give up a hobby and has difficulty performing tasks as simple as tying his shoelaces.
"Mr Gardiner's injuries would not have happened if the blade guard had been fitted. Employers have a duty to make sure machinery made available as work equipment is safe."
Health and Safety Fine for Printers
A Tunbridge Wells printing firm has been fined after intentionally removing safety guards from its printing machines, potentially putting staff at risk of injury.
Printwells Limited, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for not ensuring machinery guards were in place when employees used the machines, despite being served two Improvement Notices for the same offence in 2003.
Sevenoaks Magistrates' Court heard that on the 13 April 2010 two HSE Inspectors visited the company's premises unannounced.
The Inspectors found machine guards, known as safety interlocks, had been deactivated on two machines. The guards should have been in place to protect employees from accessing dangerous parts of the machinery.
HSE's investigation found the interlocks had been removed to allow the supervisor for the department to undertake routine maintenance work, found to be common practise within the Tunbridge Wells branch of Printwells.
Printwells Limited, of Chapman Way, North Farm Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent pleaded guilty to two counts of regulation 11(1)(a) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The firm was fined a total of £3,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,500.
HSE's inspector Guy Widdowson said:
"Printwell employees were needlessly put at risk. There could easily have been a serious injury during the maintenance of these machines. It is purely down to luck that a serious incident did not occur at this company before.
"As this case demonstrates, HSE will take robust enforcement action against any company found removing safety devices, whether an injury has occurred or not."
Printwells Limited, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for not ensuring machinery guards were in place when employees used the machines, despite being served two Improvement Notices for the same offence in 2003.
Sevenoaks Magistrates' Court heard that on the 13 April 2010 two HSE Inspectors visited the company's premises unannounced.
The Inspectors found machine guards, known as safety interlocks, had been deactivated on two machines. The guards should have been in place to protect employees from accessing dangerous parts of the machinery.
HSE's investigation found the interlocks had been removed to allow the supervisor for the department to undertake routine maintenance work, found to be common practise within the Tunbridge Wells branch of Printwells.
Printwells Limited, of Chapman Way, North Farm Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent pleaded guilty to two counts of regulation 11(1)(a) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The firm was fined a total of £3,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,500.
HSE's inspector Guy Widdowson said:
"Printwell employees were needlessly put at risk. There could easily have been a serious injury during the maintenance of these machines. It is purely down to luck that a serious incident did not occur at this company before.
"As this case demonstrates, HSE will take robust enforcement action against any company found removing safety devices, whether an injury has occurred or not."
HSE Visiting Construction Sites
During 2009/10 there were 1,287 injuries and four workers died while working in construction across London, all of these occurred during refurbishment, repair and maintenance activities. These will be the main focus of the latest inspections by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
On the unannounced visits - starting on 14 February - regional inspectors will ensure that sites are managing work at height safely and that they are in good order, as well as checking that the risk of exposure to asbestos is being properly managed.
Last year inspectors visited 230 sites and 202 contractors. They were forced to issue more than 35 prohibition notices to stop dangerous work relating to working from height.
HSE's Principal Inspector Barry Mullen said:
"This will be the fifth year that we have run the inspection initiative across London and we anticipate that that there will be examples of both good and bad practice - those where employers are taking all the measures they can to protect their workers and those where safety is way down the list of priorities.
"A lax attitude to health and safety in one of the more dangerous industries is not acceptable, especially when many of the incidents are completely avoidable by taking commonsense actions and precautions. As we've demonstrated in previous years, we will not hesitate to take action if we find poor practice that is putting the lives of workers at risk.
"This year, as part of ensuring risks from asbestos are properly managed, we will also be checking that, where appropriate, asbestos surveys have been carried out prior to any refurbishment work. Many workers believe that, because asbestos has been banned as a building material, it's no longer a threat to them. But that simply isn't true. Any premises built or refurbished before 2000 could contain asbestos."
On the unannounced visits - starting on 14 February - regional inspectors will ensure that sites are managing work at height safely and that they are in good order, as well as checking that the risk of exposure to asbestos is being properly managed.
Last year inspectors visited 230 sites and 202 contractors. They were forced to issue more than 35 prohibition notices to stop dangerous work relating to working from height.
HSE's Principal Inspector Barry Mullen said:
"This will be the fifth year that we have run the inspection initiative across London and we anticipate that that there will be examples of both good and bad practice - those where employers are taking all the measures they can to protect their workers and those where safety is way down the list of priorities.
"A lax attitude to health and safety in one of the more dangerous industries is not acceptable, especially when many of the incidents are completely avoidable by taking commonsense actions and precautions. As we've demonstrated in previous years, we will not hesitate to take action if we find poor practice that is putting the lives of workers at risk.
"This year, as part of ensuring risks from asbestos are properly managed, we will also be checking that, where appropriate, asbestos surveys have been carried out prior to any refurbishment work. Many workers believe that, because asbestos has been banned as a building material, it's no longer a threat to them. But that simply isn't true. Any premises built or refurbished before 2000 could contain asbestos."
Construction Sites Still Dangerous
Nearly a third of the construction sites visited in High Peak last week were found to be so dangerous that workers' lives were being put at risk.
Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) visited 56 sites in the borough on 8 and 9 March, as part of an initiative aimed at reducing deaths and injuries in one of Britain's most dangerous industries.
A total of 17 sites were found to be so far below the required standards that inspectors had to issue formal enforcement notices.
[1]
A site inspected in New Mills
The four-week initiative, which was launched on 14 February, saw inspectors across Great Britain target refurbishment projects − the worst performing sector of the construction industry.
Several of the sites visited received more than one enforcement notice either stopping work activities immediately, or requiring improvements to be made within a set time period.
In total, inspectors issued 23 prohibition and 11 improvement notices in High Peak, with the vast majority relating to unsafe work being carried out at height.
The latest figures show that, on average, a construction worker is injured in High Peak every three weeks. Across the East Midlands, four workers were killed and there were 645 injuries during 2009/10.
Nationally, nearly three quarters of all deaths occurred during refurbishment, repair and maintenance activities.
Nic Rigby, HSE Principal Inspector for Construction, said:
"We saw a total of 68 different contractors in High Peak and it's disappointing that so many of them are ignoring their health and safety responsibilities - especially after we publicised the fact we would be visiting the area.
"It's particularly concerning that so many of the enforcement notices we issued related to unsafe work being carried out at height. This is the number one cause of deaths in the construction industry.
"HSE will not hesitate to use its powers to stop work that isn't being carried out safely, and we expect to see a significant improvement in standards over the next few months."
More information on construction safety is available at www.hse.gov.uk/construction[2].
Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) visited 56 sites in the borough on 8 and 9 March, as part of an initiative aimed at reducing deaths and injuries in one of Britain's most dangerous industries.
A total of 17 sites were found to be so far below the required standards that inspectors had to issue formal enforcement notices.
[1]
A site inspected in New Mills
The four-week initiative, which was launched on 14 February, saw inspectors across Great Britain target refurbishment projects − the worst performing sector of the construction industry.
Several of the sites visited received more than one enforcement notice either stopping work activities immediately, or requiring improvements to be made within a set time period.
In total, inspectors issued 23 prohibition and 11 improvement notices in High Peak, with the vast majority relating to unsafe work being carried out at height.
The latest figures show that, on average, a construction worker is injured in High Peak every three weeks. Across the East Midlands, four workers were killed and there were 645 injuries during 2009/10.
Nationally, nearly three quarters of all deaths occurred during refurbishment, repair and maintenance activities.
Nic Rigby, HSE Principal Inspector for Construction, said:
"We saw a total of 68 different contractors in High Peak and it's disappointing that so many of them are ignoring their health and safety responsibilities - especially after we publicised the fact we would be visiting the area.
"It's particularly concerning that so many of the enforcement notices we issued related to unsafe work being carried out at height. This is the number one cause of deaths in the construction industry.
"HSE will not hesitate to use its powers to stop work that isn't being carried out safely, and we expect to see a significant improvement in standards over the next few months."
More information on construction safety is available at www.hse.gov.uk/construction[2].
Monday, 28 February 2011
HSE Vibration Clampdown in progress
The Health effects of hand-arm vibration at work
What is hand-arm vibration?
Hand-arm vibration is vibration transmitted from work processes into workers' hands and arms. It can be caused by operating hand-held power tools, such as road breakers, and hand-guided equipment, such as powered lawnmowers, or by holding materials being processed by machines, such as pedestal grinders.
When is it hazardous?
Regular and frequent exposure to hand-arm vibration can lead to permanent health effects. This is most likely when contact with a vibrating tool or work process is a regular part of a person’s job. Occasional exposure is unlikely to cause ill health.
What health effects can it cause?
Hand-arm vibration can cause a range of conditions collectively known as hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS), as well as specific diseases such as carpal tunnel syndrome.
What are the early symptoms?
Identifying signs and symptoms at an early stage is important. It will allow you, as the employer, to take action to prevent the health effects from becoming serious for your employee. The symptoms include any combination of:
Tingling and numbness in the fingers;
Not being able to feel things properly;
Loss of strength in the hands;
Fingers going white (blanching) and becoming red and painful on recovery (particularly in the cold and wet, and probably only in the tips at first).
For some people, symptoms may appear after only a few months of exposure, but for others they may take a few years. They are likely to get worse with continued exposure to vibration and may become permanent.
What effects do these symptoms have?
The effects on people include:
Pain, distress and sleep disturbance;
Inability to do fine work (eg assembling small components) or everyday tasks (eg fastening buttons);
Reduced ability to work in cold or damp conditions (ie most outdoor work) which would trigger painful finger blanching attacks;
Reduced grip strength, which might affect the ability to do work safely.
These effects can severely limit the jobs an affected person is able to do, as well as many family and social activities.
Do you have a hand-arm vibration problem at work?
This will depend on whether your employees regularly and frequently work with vibrating tools and equipment and/or handle vibrating materials. It will also depend on how long your employees are exposed to vibration and at what level. As a simple guide you will probably need to do something about vibration exposures if any of the following apply:
Do your employees complain of tingling and numbness in their hands or fingers after using vibrating tools?
Do your employees hold work pieces, which vibrate while being processed by powered machinery such as pedestal grinders?
Do your employees regularly use hand-held or hand guided power tools and machines such as:
Concrete breakers, concrete pokers;
Sanders, grinders, disc cutters;
Hammer drills;
Chipping hammers;
Chainsaws, brush cutters, hedge trimmers,
Powered mowers;
Scabblers or needle guns.
Do your employees regularly operate:
Hammer action tools for more than about 15 minutes per day; or
Some rotary and other action tools for more than about one hour per day.
Do you work in an industry where exposures to vibration are particularly high, such as construction, foundries, or heavy steel fabrication/shipyards?
Which jobs and industries are most likely to involve hand-arm vibration?
Jobs requiring regular and frequent use of vibrating tools and equipment and handling of vibrating materials are found in a wide range of industries, for example:
Building and maintenance of roads and railways;
Construction;
Estate management (eg maintenance of grounds, parks, water courses, road and rail side verges);
Forestry;
Foundries;
Heavy engineering;
Manufacturing concrete products;
Mines and quarries;
Motor vehicle manufacture and repair;
Public utilities (eg water, gas, electricity, telecommunications);
Shipbuilding and repair.
What kinds of tools and equipment can cause ill health from vibration?
There are hundreds of different types of hand-held power tools and equipment which can cause ill health from vibration. Some of the more common ones are:
Chainsaws;
Concrete breakers/road breakers;
Cut-off saws (for stone etc);
Hammer drills;
Hand-held grinders;
Impact wrenches;
Jigsaws;
Needle scalers;
Pedestal grinders;
Polishers;
Power hammers and chisels;
Powered lawn mowers;
Powered sanders;
Scabblers;
Strimmers/brush cutters.
What is hand-arm vibration?
Hand-arm vibration is vibration transmitted from work processes into workers' hands and arms. It can be caused by operating hand-held power tools, such as road breakers, and hand-guided equipment, such as powered lawnmowers, or by holding materials being processed by machines, such as pedestal grinders.
When is it hazardous?
Regular and frequent exposure to hand-arm vibration can lead to permanent health effects. This is most likely when contact with a vibrating tool or work process is a regular part of a person’s job. Occasional exposure is unlikely to cause ill health.
What health effects can it cause?
Hand-arm vibration can cause a range of conditions collectively known as hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS), as well as specific diseases such as carpal tunnel syndrome.
What are the early symptoms?
Identifying signs and symptoms at an early stage is important. It will allow you, as the employer, to take action to prevent the health effects from becoming serious for your employee. The symptoms include any combination of:
Tingling and numbness in the fingers;
Not being able to feel things properly;
Loss of strength in the hands;
Fingers going white (blanching) and becoming red and painful on recovery (particularly in the cold and wet, and probably only in the tips at first).
For some people, symptoms may appear after only a few months of exposure, but for others they may take a few years. They are likely to get worse with continued exposure to vibration and may become permanent.
What effects do these symptoms have?
The effects on people include:
Pain, distress and sleep disturbance;
Inability to do fine work (eg assembling small components) or everyday tasks (eg fastening buttons);
Reduced ability to work in cold or damp conditions (ie most outdoor work) which would trigger painful finger blanching attacks;
Reduced grip strength, which might affect the ability to do work safely.
These effects can severely limit the jobs an affected person is able to do, as well as many family and social activities.
Do you have a hand-arm vibration problem at work?
This will depend on whether your employees regularly and frequently work with vibrating tools and equipment and/or handle vibrating materials. It will also depend on how long your employees are exposed to vibration and at what level. As a simple guide you will probably need to do something about vibration exposures if any of the following apply:
Do your employees complain of tingling and numbness in their hands or fingers after using vibrating tools?
Do your employees hold work pieces, which vibrate while being processed by powered machinery such as pedestal grinders?
Do your employees regularly use hand-held or hand guided power tools and machines such as:
Concrete breakers, concrete pokers;
Sanders, grinders, disc cutters;
Hammer drills;
Chipping hammers;
Chainsaws, brush cutters, hedge trimmers,
Powered mowers;
Scabblers or needle guns.
Do your employees regularly operate:
Hammer action tools for more than about 15 minutes per day; or
Some rotary and other action tools for more than about one hour per day.
Do you work in an industry where exposures to vibration are particularly high, such as construction, foundries, or heavy steel fabrication/shipyards?
Which jobs and industries are most likely to involve hand-arm vibration?
Jobs requiring regular and frequent use of vibrating tools and equipment and handling of vibrating materials are found in a wide range of industries, for example:
Building and maintenance of roads and railways;
Construction;
Estate management (eg maintenance of grounds, parks, water courses, road and rail side verges);
Forestry;
Foundries;
Heavy engineering;
Manufacturing concrete products;
Mines and quarries;
Motor vehicle manufacture and repair;
Public utilities (eg water, gas, electricity, telecommunications);
Shipbuilding and repair.
What kinds of tools and equipment can cause ill health from vibration?
There are hundreds of different types of hand-held power tools and equipment which can cause ill health from vibration. Some of the more common ones are:
Chainsaws;
Concrete breakers/road breakers;
Cut-off saws (for stone etc);
Hammer drills;
Hand-held grinders;
Impact wrenches;
Jigsaws;
Needle scalers;
Pedestal grinders;
Polishers;
Power hammers and chisels;
Powered lawn mowers;
Powered sanders;
Scabblers;
Strimmers/brush cutters.
Thursday, 24 February 2011
RHSS Limited PAT testing services
Visual Inspection
Firstly we carry out a visual inspection of the appliance checking:
• The Flex. We check to see it is in good condition and is free from cuts, fraying or damage
• The Plug. We check that the cable is tight and secure and that there are no signs of overheating and it is free from cracks or damage. We also check that the plug has been wired correctly and the terminal screws are tight
• Socket Outlet. Are there any signs of overheating? Is it free from cracks and damage?
• The Appliance. We check the appliance for signs of cracks and damage to the casing
Testing the Appliance
Then, subject to the appliance passing the visual inspection, we connect it to a specialist PAT Tester which checks:
1. Earth Continuity
2. Insulation Resistance
3. Polarity – Power leads only
The Results
Each appliance is then labelled appropriately with a PASS/FAIL vinyl label and the results are logged
Testing IT Equipment
Due to the delicate nature of IT equipment, a reduced current is applied to these appliances.
A visual inspection only will be carried out on servers and they will NOT be turned off
Any appliance that fails the test will be brought to your attention immediately
For your convenience, and to avoid any possible disruption
to the office, the testing can be done out of office hours
for NO extra charge
We are fully certified and insured and our
pricing structure is extremely competitive
* FREE plug replacement
* FREE fuse replacement
* FREE mains lead replacement for computers
* FREE microwave emission checks
* SAME DAY certification if required
Anyone who lets residential accommodation as a business activity is required by law to ensure that the electrical equipment they supply as part of the tenancy is safe
The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994 requires that all mains electrical equipment (cookers, washing machines, fridges, kettles etc) supplied in rented accommodation must be safe
The ‘supply’ of the electrical equipment occurs at the time of the tenancy contract. It is, therefore, essential that PAT Testing is carried out prior to the start of the tenancy
A report, detailing the equipment checked, the tests carried out and the results will be sent to you for your records
We offer a special rate for landlords and agents
Please call us for details
Firstly we carry out a visual inspection of the appliance checking:
• The Flex. We check to see it is in good condition and is free from cuts, fraying or damage
• The Plug. We check that the cable is tight and secure and that there are no signs of overheating and it is free from cracks or damage. We also check that the plug has been wired correctly and the terminal screws are tight
• Socket Outlet. Are there any signs of overheating? Is it free from cracks and damage?
• The Appliance. We check the appliance for signs of cracks and damage to the casing
Testing the Appliance
Then, subject to the appliance passing the visual inspection, we connect it to a specialist PAT Tester which checks:
1. Earth Continuity
2. Insulation Resistance
3. Polarity – Power leads only
The Results
Each appliance is then labelled appropriately with a PASS/FAIL vinyl label and the results are logged
Testing IT Equipment
Due to the delicate nature of IT equipment, a reduced current is applied to these appliances.
A visual inspection only will be carried out on servers and they will NOT be turned off
Any appliance that fails the test will be brought to your attention immediately
For your convenience, and to avoid any possible disruption
to the office, the testing can be done out of office hours
for NO extra charge
We are fully certified and insured and our
pricing structure is extremely competitive
* FREE plug replacement
* FREE fuse replacement
* FREE mains lead replacement for computers
* FREE microwave emission checks
* SAME DAY certification if required
Anyone who lets residential accommodation as a business activity is required by law to ensure that the electrical equipment they supply as part of the tenancy is safe
The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994 requires that all mains electrical equipment (cookers, washing machines, fridges, kettles etc) supplied in rented accommodation must be safe
The ‘supply’ of the electrical equipment occurs at the time of the tenancy contract. It is, therefore, essential that PAT Testing is carried out prior to the start of the tenancy
A report, detailing the equipment checked, the tests carried out and the results will be sent to you for your records
We offer a special rate for landlords and agents
Please call us for details
EU orders UK to tighten asbestos laws
The European Commission has requested that the UK amend its regulations on asbestos at work because they do not comply fully with the parent EU Directive.
Delivered in the form of a reasoned opinion under EU infringement procedures, the Commission wants the UK to change provisions in its legislation that exempt some maintenance and repair activities from the application of the EU Directive on the protection of workers from asbestos.
It follows a complaint received by the Commission that Article 3(3)(a) and (b) of the asbestos Directive 2009/148/EC has not been correctly transposed into UK law. Article 3(3) offers the possibility for an exemption from three obligations set out in the Directive for activities that involve only sporadic and low-intensity exposure to asbestos – for example, in the case of some maintenance and repair activities.
However, in the Commission’s view, the UK law omits specific parts of Article 3(3)(a) and (b), and so widens the scope of the exemption. The Commission says the UK legislation focuses on the measurement of exposure to asbestos but not enough on how the material can be affected by the work involved. The Directive deals with both exposure and the material.
The UK now has two months to bring its legislation into line with EU law, or risk the matter being referred to the EU’s Court of Justice.
Commenting on the development, TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber, said: “This is another nail in the coffin of the myth that the HSE has been ‘gold-plating’ regulation. European regulations are there to protect workers, and governments should see them as being minimum standards rather than trying to weasel out of their commitments.”
Alan Ritchie, general secretary of construction-workers’ union UCATT, added: "Construction workers, especially those involved in maintenance work, are now at the greatest risk of being exposed to asbestos and developing asbestos-related diseases.
“It is essential that they are given the greatest possible training, education and protection when it comes to dealing with asbestos. UCATT’s advice is clear: if you are not a specialist, do not work with asbestos. If, at any point, you think you are working with asbestos, stop work immediately and get it checked out.”
Delivered in the form of a reasoned opinion under EU infringement procedures, the Commission wants the UK to change provisions in its legislation that exempt some maintenance and repair activities from the application of the EU Directive on the protection of workers from asbestos.
It follows a complaint received by the Commission that Article 3(3)(a) and (b) of the asbestos Directive 2009/148/EC has not been correctly transposed into UK law. Article 3(3) offers the possibility for an exemption from three obligations set out in the Directive for activities that involve only sporadic and low-intensity exposure to asbestos – for example, in the case of some maintenance and repair activities.
However, in the Commission’s view, the UK law omits specific parts of Article 3(3)(a) and (b), and so widens the scope of the exemption. The Commission says the UK legislation focuses on the measurement of exposure to asbestos but not enough on how the material can be affected by the work involved. The Directive deals with both exposure and the material.
The UK now has two months to bring its legislation into line with EU law, or risk the matter being referred to the EU’s Court of Justice.
Commenting on the development, TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber, said: “This is another nail in the coffin of the myth that the HSE has been ‘gold-plating’ regulation. European regulations are there to protect workers, and governments should see them as being minimum standards rather than trying to weasel out of their commitments.”
Alan Ritchie, general secretary of construction-workers’ union UCATT, added: "Construction workers, especially those involved in maintenance work, are now at the greatest risk of being exposed to asbestos and developing asbestos-related diseases.
“It is essential that they are given the greatest possible training, education and protection when it comes to dealing with asbestos. UCATT’s advice is clear: if you are not a specialist, do not work with asbestos. If, at any point, you think you are working with asbestos, stop work immediately and get it checked out.”
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
How many slips have happened in your kitchen?
When kitchen worker Amy slipped on water from a leaking drinks dispenser, she instinctively reached out to stop her fall, in the process she plunged her arm into boiling hot oil. Chef Ahsan was even more unlucky; he slipped on a floor still wet from mopping and in the process of falling, pulled the entire contents of a hot deep fat fryer over him. These are two examples of serious slip accidents that have happened in a professional kitchen. In 2006/07 1863 people received an injury that kept them off work for more than three days, 640 received a major injury (many resulting in broken bones). As well as the personal cost, accidents can leave you short handed and can cost you money (e.g. sick pay, compensation claims, increased insurance costs).
Everyone has a part to play when it comes to stopping slips. Chefs, managers and business owners need to set up effective systems for preventing slips and trips and then need to ensure staff are informed, trained and following those systems. Staff can make a big difference by adopting a ‘see it, sort it’ mentality.
Materials have been produced, designed to help you reduce the risk of slipping in your kitchen and help you comply with health and safety legislation. Electronic copies can be viewed by clicking on the links below;
http://www.hse.gov.uk/slips/kitchens/goodpractice.pdf
Everyone has a part to play when it comes to stopping slips. Chefs, managers and business owners need to set up effective systems for preventing slips and trips and then need to ensure staff are informed, trained and following those systems. Staff can make a big difference by adopting a ‘see it, sort it’ mentality.
Materials have been produced, designed to help you reduce the risk of slipping in your kitchen and help you comply with health and safety legislation. Electronic copies can be viewed by clicking on the links below;
http://www.hse.gov.uk/slips/kitchens/goodpractice.pdf
How many slips have happened in your kitchen?
When kitchen worker Amy slipped on water from a leaking drinks dispenser, she instinctively reached out to stop her fall, in the process she plunged her arm into boiling hot oil. Chef Ahsan was even more unlucky; he slipped on a floor still wet from mopping and in the process of falling, pulled the entire contents of a hot deep fat fryer over him. These are two examples of serious slip accidents that have happened in a professional kitchen. In 2006/07 1863 people received an injury that kept them off work for more than three days, 640 received a major injury (many resulting in broken bones). As well as the personal cost, accidents can leave you short handed and can cost you money (e.g. sick pay, compensation claims, increased insurance costs).
Everyone has a part to play when it comes to stopping slips. Chefs, managers and business owners need to set up effective systems for preventing slips and trips and then need to ensure staff are informed, trained and following those systems. Staff can make a big difference by adopting a ‘see it, sort it’ mentality.
Materials have been produced, designed to help you reduce the risk of slipping in your kitchen and help you comply with health and safety legislation. Electronic copies can be viewed by clicking on the links below;
http://www.hse.gov.uk/slips/kitchens/goodpractice.pdf
Everyone has a part to play when it comes to stopping slips. Chefs, managers and business owners need to set up effective systems for preventing slips and trips and then need to ensure staff are informed, trained and following those systems. Staff can make a big difference by adopting a ‘see it, sort it’ mentality.
Materials have been produced, designed to help you reduce the risk of slipping in your kitchen and help you comply with health and safety legislation. Electronic copies can be viewed by clicking on the links below;
http://www.hse.gov.uk/slips/kitchens/goodpractice.pdf
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
Occupational Safety Consultants Register (OSCR) Q&A
What is the register designed to do?The Occupational Safety Consultants Register (OSCR) is a first step to resolving the problems identified by Lord Young in the Raising Standards section of his report. While many businesses develop in-house competence, and do not need to use health and safety consultants (because, for example, they already employ competent persons to provide the assistance required by regulation 7 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999), some will need help. Those that use a consultant who is on the OSCR can have confidence that such a person has complied with the high qualification standards of a recognised professional body.
Who can sign up?The scheme is voluntary for individuals who provide commercial third party advice services on general safety management issues. To register, you must be a chartered member of IOSH, CIEH or REHIS or a fellow of IIRSM. Consultants with the highest qualifications and experience are eligible to apply to the OSCR: those who are recognised by a professional body have a commitment to continuing professional development, a degree level qualification, assessed experience, professional indemnity insurance and are bound by a code of conduct to only provide sensible and proportionate advice.
Why can't people who are not members of professional bodies sign up?The professional bodies provide the verification that those on the Register have a commitment to continuing professional development, a degree level qualification, assessed experience, professional indemnity insurance and who are bound by a code of conduct to only provide sensible and proportionate advice. Other consultants may regard themselves as well qualified and are not prevented from continuing their business. Consultants not yet affiliated to a professional body may wish to join one and once Chartered or Fellow status is achieved, they can apply to register on OSCR.
Will there be a joining fee or ongoing costs for being on the register?Yes, there will be a small fee to cover administration costs. This is not about making profits. The fee is yet to be established.
Who is involved in the scheme and what are their roles? Will HSE always be leading the work?HSE is working with the professional bodies and other stakeholders (listed below) as a facilitator in ensuring that OSCR is established by professional bodies as a not-for-profit company. The intention is that once it is up-and-running, HSE will no longer need to be directly involved. The exact structure of the company is yet to be finalised. The professional bodies and other stakeholders involved are: Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH ); Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH); International Institute of Risk and Safety Management (IIRSM); Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland (REHIS); British Safety Council; British Safety Industry Federation (BSIF); National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health (NEBOSH); Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA); British Occupational Hygiene Society (BOHS); and Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors (IEHF).
Will businesses still be able to use Trade Associations for advice?Yes, HSE recognises that many employers approach their Trade Associations and obtain competent advice from them. Trade Associations cannot register with the OSCR simply because individuals are only eligible to register and not groups.
What are the key milestones for the scheme over the next few years? For example, what is going to happen in January 2011?The scheme will go live early in 2011 and employers will be able to access the online database of safety consultants from then. An announcement will be made later in the year regarding the not-for-profit company, whose membership will comprise the professional bodies, that is intended to run the scheme and the precise mechanism for safety consultants to register. HSE will, in parallel, be considering the whole of Lord Young’s suggestions on the issue of raising standards.
Does membership of the register have to be renewed every year or few years?While the detail is yet to be agreed, a renewal requirement is anticipated and a small annual registration fee will be payable to ensure that the register is kept up to date and to cover administration costs. The fees have yet to be set.
Does being registered mean that a contractor is of proven good quality like bearers of a kite mark?Organisations using a consultant from the register can have confidence that such persons are highly qualified and experienced, and have been recognised as such by the relevant professional bodies which, through their codes of conduct, will require them to only give advice which is sensible and proportionate. It also means that consultants will have to be clear about those areas in which they are professionally competent. Employers are ultimately responsible for safety in their workplaces and have a duty in law to appoint sufficient number of competent persons to advise them. In complying with this duty, doing this, some will wish to have external safety advice. They should take the same steps to check the suitability and the value for money of the service as they would do when selecting any commercial service.
How will the scheme help prevent poor quality health and safety advice being given?It will create a single recognised national scheme for identifying safety consultants who have attained high degrees of qualifications and experience as recognised by the participating professional bodies.
Why is the register being set up as a not for profit company?It is simply a mechanism to administer the scheme. The details are not yet decided, but the professional bodies will be members of the company and decide together how it will be run. HSE will not be a member.
How will HSE and local authority inspectors use the register?If they encounter an organisation which has a clear need for external safety advice on general safety management issues, they can refer them to the OSCR. If they need specialist advice (for example, on managing a health surveillance programme) they will be referred to a relevant professional body.
Who can sign up?The scheme is voluntary for individuals who provide commercial third party advice services on general safety management issues. To register, you must be a chartered member of IOSH, CIEH or REHIS or a fellow of IIRSM. Consultants with the highest qualifications and experience are eligible to apply to the OSCR: those who are recognised by a professional body have a commitment to continuing professional development, a degree level qualification, assessed experience, professional indemnity insurance and are bound by a code of conduct to only provide sensible and proportionate advice.
Why can't people who are not members of professional bodies sign up?The professional bodies provide the verification that those on the Register have a commitment to continuing professional development, a degree level qualification, assessed experience, professional indemnity insurance and who are bound by a code of conduct to only provide sensible and proportionate advice. Other consultants may regard themselves as well qualified and are not prevented from continuing their business. Consultants not yet affiliated to a professional body may wish to join one and once Chartered or Fellow status is achieved, they can apply to register on OSCR.
Will there be a joining fee or ongoing costs for being on the register?Yes, there will be a small fee to cover administration costs. This is not about making profits. The fee is yet to be established.
Who is involved in the scheme and what are their roles? Will HSE always be leading the work?HSE is working with the professional bodies and other stakeholders (listed below) as a facilitator in ensuring that OSCR is established by professional bodies as a not-for-profit company. The intention is that once it is up-and-running, HSE will no longer need to be directly involved. The exact structure of the company is yet to be finalised. The professional bodies and other stakeholders involved are: Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH ); Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH); International Institute of Risk and Safety Management (IIRSM); Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland (REHIS); British Safety Council; British Safety Industry Federation (BSIF); National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health (NEBOSH); Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA); British Occupational Hygiene Society (BOHS); and Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors (IEHF).
Will businesses still be able to use Trade Associations for advice?Yes, HSE recognises that many employers approach their Trade Associations and obtain competent advice from them. Trade Associations cannot register with the OSCR simply because individuals are only eligible to register and not groups.
What are the key milestones for the scheme over the next few years? For example, what is going to happen in January 2011?The scheme will go live early in 2011 and employers will be able to access the online database of safety consultants from then. An announcement will be made later in the year regarding the not-for-profit company, whose membership will comprise the professional bodies, that is intended to run the scheme and the precise mechanism for safety consultants to register. HSE will, in parallel, be considering the whole of Lord Young’s suggestions on the issue of raising standards.
Does membership of the register have to be renewed every year or few years?While the detail is yet to be agreed, a renewal requirement is anticipated and a small annual registration fee will be payable to ensure that the register is kept up to date and to cover administration costs. The fees have yet to be set.
Does being registered mean that a contractor is of proven good quality like bearers of a kite mark?Organisations using a consultant from the register can have confidence that such persons are highly qualified and experienced, and have been recognised as such by the relevant professional bodies which, through their codes of conduct, will require them to only give advice which is sensible and proportionate. It also means that consultants will have to be clear about those areas in which they are professionally competent. Employers are ultimately responsible for safety in their workplaces and have a duty in law to appoint sufficient number of competent persons to advise them. In complying with this duty, doing this, some will wish to have external safety advice. They should take the same steps to check the suitability and the value for money of the service as they would do when selecting any commercial service.
How will the scheme help prevent poor quality health and safety advice being given?It will create a single recognised national scheme for identifying safety consultants who have attained high degrees of qualifications and experience as recognised by the participating professional bodies.
Why is the register being set up as a not for profit company?It is simply a mechanism to administer the scheme. The details are not yet decided, but the professional bodies will be members of the company and decide together how it will be run. HSE will not be a member.
How will HSE and local authority inspectors use the register?If they encounter an organisation which has a clear need for external safety advice on general safety management issues, they can refer them to the OSCR. If they need specialist advice (for example, on managing a health surveillance programme) they will be referred to a relevant professional body.
Monday, 10 January 2011
New Services
We are delighted to continue to offer the following services that some of you may not be aware of:
Fire Extinguisher Provision and Servicing (build in with Health and Safety visits to save at least 10%)
CDM-Coordinator Services for your Building Project - helping with CDM compliance
Assessment of competence of your contractors or associates
High Level Fire Safety Consultancy "RHSS Fire" web site and blog will launch in March 2011 as well as advanced services in Fire Risk Assessment, Fire Auditing, Fire Training and related Fire Services
RHSS Signs providing standard and bespoke signage of all kinds www.rhss-signs.co.uk
RHSS Limited are in the final stages of gaining ISO9001 Quality Management System to ensure that our systems reach the highest standards to benefit our customers
Our First Aid Training Courses go from strength to strength throughout 2011
Refer a client scheme - we work with a variety of clients and we try to introduce them to each other if we see a business link or opportunity - do the same for us and if successful in line with our criteria we will knock upto 20% off your next bill!
Fire Extinguisher Provision and Servicing (build in with Health and Safety visits to save at least 10%)
CDM-Coordinator Services for your Building Project - helping with CDM compliance
Assessment of competence of your contractors or associates
High Level Fire Safety Consultancy "RHSS Fire" web site and blog will launch in March 2011 as well as advanced services in Fire Risk Assessment, Fire Auditing, Fire Training and related Fire Services
RHSS Signs providing standard and bespoke signage of all kinds www.rhss-signs.co.uk
RHSS Limited are in the final stages of gaining ISO9001 Quality Management System to ensure that our systems reach the highest standards to benefit our customers
Our First Aid Training Courses go from strength to strength throughout 2011
Refer a client scheme - we work with a variety of clients and we try to introduce them to each other if we see a business link or opportunity - do the same for us and if successful in line with our criteria we will knock upto 20% off your next bill!
Sunday, 2 January 2011
Gas Safe Register
Anyone employed to work on gas appliances in domestic premises must be Gas Safe registered and competent in that area of gas work. By using a Gas Safe registered engineer, and by checking the back of their ID card to see if they are qualified to do the type of gas work you want, you can be sure that any work completed by them will be done competently and safely.
HSE advises that you should arrange for regular maintenance and an annual safety check to be carried out on your gas appliances and installation by a Gas Safe registered engineer. Landlords have a legal duty to ensure that this is carried out.
Unsafe gas work can lead to a gas leak, fire, explosion and exposure to carbon monoxide, which could result in you, your family or friends being seriously injured or killed.
Better Gas Safe than sorry. Always check the card.
Go to the Gas Safe Register [1] or phone 0800 408 5500 to find out more about how to make sure your engineer is Gas Safe registered and how to protect yourself and your family from unsafe gas work.
HSE advises that you should arrange for regular maintenance and an annual safety check to be carried out on your gas appliances and installation by a Gas Safe registered engineer. Landlords have a legal duty to ensure that this is carried out.
Unsafe gas work can lead to a gas leak, fire, explosion and exposure to carbon monoxide, which could result in you, your family or friends being seriously injured or killed.
Better Gas Safe than sorry. Always check the card.
Go to the Gas Safe Register [1] or phone 0800 408 5500 to find out more about how to make sure your engineer is Gas Safe registered and how to protect yourself and your family from unsafe gas work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)