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
Friday, 18 November 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)