Mersey shipbuilding firm sentenced over welder death

A Merseyside shipbuilding firm has been fined £120,000 over the death of a welder who became trapped while driving a forklift truck.

Robert Dunroe suffered life-threatening injuries while using the truck to transport heavy welding equipment at Cammell Laird in Birkenhead on 18 August 2010. He died in hospital four days later.

The forklift truck Mr Dunroe was driving when he became trapped

His employer, Cammell Laird Shiprepairers & Shipbuilders Ltd, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an investigation found he had been able to drive the forklift despite not having any training.

Liverpool Crown Court heard the 62-year-old from Wirral had become crushed between the truck and a lifting beam used on a crane at the Campeltown Road plant. Another employee ran over to the vehicle and reversed it, releasing Mr Dunroe, but he died from his injuries.

The court was told that keys were routinely left in the ignition of forklifts, and that Mr Dunroe had driven a truck on several occasions without being challenged about his lack of training. No procedures were in place to inform employees who was and who was not authorised to drive the trucks.

Mr Dunroe's widow, Jane, said:

"Rob meant everything to me. We'd been together since we were 15 and we did everything together. He was just my life.

"I'd just retired and we were looking forward to spending more time together. Our friends are couples and I can't go out with them any more, as it just doesn't feel right.

"And I can't go to the places Rob and I used to go together. That feels wrong too."

Cammell Laird Shiprepairers & Shipbuilders Ltd admitted breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by failing to ensure the safety of its employees. The company, which has around 500 employees, was fined £120,000 and ordered to pay £12,294 in prosecution costs on 22 March 2012.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Richard Clarke said:

"A company the size of Cammell Laird should have known better than to have allowed keys to be routinely left in forklift trucks, making driving a truck the easy option for employees wanting to transport heavy equipment.

"Mr Dunroe may well have thought he was doing his employer a favour by moving the welding equipment as quickly as possible, but instead he has ended up losing his life.

"The dangers of forklift trucks are well known in the manufacturing industry and Cammell Laird has since introduced new procedures to ensure keys are safely locked away, and that a list is available of trained drivers.

"If these procedures had been in place before Mr Dunroe's death then he may well have still been alive today."

On average, there are eight deaths and 1,500 injuries reported every year as a result of incidents involving forklift trucks

Huddersfield firm fined for safety breach

A West Yorkshire manufacturing firm has been fined after an engineer lost part of a finger while test running an unguarded power press.

Metal Closures (Huddersfield) Ltd was prosecuted after James Hill, a development engineer, was injured while helping to run and de-bug a new production line incorporating two power presses.

Dewsbury Magistrates' Court heard Mr Hill joined the team in mid-August 2010 to help resolve a number of teething problems. Although it was still at a development stage, the press line was already being used to produce up to 20,000 caps a day for whisky bottle tubes for a new business customer.

During the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecution the court was told that on 24 August, the second press was tripping out regularly because of mis-feeds of partly formed caps being transferred from the first press. At one point the fault occurred again and the press tripped out causing it to come to rest with the clutch disengaged but with the flywheel still running.

The engineer went over to the unguarded press and pulled the crushed caps out of the machine tools with pliers and then inserted his hand into the mechanism to discover what was causing the mis-feeds.

At the same time, a technical manager had gone to the production line. He did not see the engineer crouched by the press and went over to the control panel to reset a number of buttons. The press started up again catching the Mr Hill's right index finger in the tools and severing it just below the second knuckle.

After the hearing HSE inspector John Micklethwaite said:

"Power presses are inherently very dangerous machines, as everyone in the manufacturing industry knows.  Metal Closures allowed themselves to be drawn into a situation where they were trying to supply a product from a troublesome new press line before it had been properly de-bugged and before it had been handed over to production staff.

"Metal Closures failed to apply normal safety standards to the production power presses. They should have been adequately guarded and technicians should not have been able to work on them until it was safe to do so."

Is asbestos training a legal responsibility?

The current Regulations place a legal duty on employers to provide information, instruction and training to any of their employees who are likely to be exposed to asbestos as part of their work.

The three main types of information, instruction and training are:

• asbestos awareness training
• training for non-licensable asbestos work – ie the type of work described in HSE’s Asbestos essentials
• training for licensable asbestos work

What is the ‘duty to manage’ asbestos and who has it?

The duty to manage asbestos is a legal requirement under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 (Regulation 4). It applies to the owners and occupiers of commercial premises (such as shops, offices, industrial units etc) who have responsibility for maintenance and repair activities. In addition to these responsibilities, they also have a duty to assess the presence and condition of any asbestos-containing materials. If asbestos is present, or is presumed to be present, then it must be managed appropriately. The duty also applies to the shared parts of some domestic premises

What is an asbestos survey and do I need one?

An asbestos survey is an effective way to help you manage asbestos in your premises by providing accurate information about the location, amount and type of any asbestos-containing materials (ACMs). While not a legal requirement, it is recommended that you arrange a survey if you suspect there are ACMs in your premises. Alternatively, you may choose to presume there is asbestos in your premises and would then need to take all appropriate precautions for any work that takes place. However, it is good practice to have an asbestos survey carried out so you can be absolutely sure whether asbestos is present or not.
The asbestos survey can help to provide enough information so that an asbestos register, a risk assessment and a management plan can then be prepared. The survey will usually involve sampling and analysis to determine the presence of asbestos so asbestos surveys should only be carried out by competent surveyors who can clearly demonstrate they have the necessary skills, experience and qualifications.
An asbestos survey will identify:

• the location of any asbestos-containing materials in the building
• the type of asbestos they contain
• the condition these materials are in

Following a survey, the surveyor should produce a survey report which details the findings. This information can help you prepare an asbestos risk register

Are changes planned to the asbestos regulations?

A public consultation running from 5 September to 4 November 2011 sets out HSE's proposals to introduce revised Control of Asbestos Regulations. This is to implement changes required to comply with the European Commission's recent reasoned opinion on the UK Government's transposition of the European Directive on the protection of workers from the risks of exposure to asbestos at work. The Commission reached a 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 changes mean that in future (from April 2012) fewer types of lower risk work will be exempt from the three requirements. This means more work will attract the need for medical examinations, notification and records. Those likely to be affected are employers (including the self employed) who are liable to carry out short duration work on plant and equipment or buildings which contain asbestos materials and those who procure such work.
The public consultation is seeking views on: the proposals; the guidance to be produced to explain how the changes will work in practice; and the impact on business. The consultative document and the online questionnaire are available on consultation page, CD237 - Proposals on Revised Control of Asbestos Regulations.
The public consultation will last for 9 weeks closing on 4 November 2011. All responses must be received by this date. This consultation only applies to Great Britain; Northern Ireland is not included

What are the health risks from asbestos?

Asbestos is responsible for over 4000 deaths every year. Younger people, if routinely exposed to asbestos fibres over time, are at greater risk of developing asbestos-related disease than older workers. This is due to the time it takes for the body to develop symptoms after exposure to asbestos (latency). Exposure to asbestos can cause four main diseases:

• Mesothelioma (a cancer of the lining of the lungs; it is always fatal and is almost exclusively caused by exposure to asbestos)
• Asbestos-related lung cancer (which is almost always fatal)
• Asbestosis (a scarring of the lungs which is not always fatal but can be a very debilitating disease, greatly affecting quality of life)
• Diffuse pleural thickening (a thickening of the membrane surrounding the lungs which can restrict lung expansion leading to breathlessness.)

You can get further detailed information on these diseases from the HSE website.
It can take anywhere between 15–60 years for any symptoms to develop after exposure, so these diseases will not affect you immediately but may do later in life. You need to start protecting yourself against any exposure to asbestos now because the effect is cumulative.
Asbestos was a widely used material within commercial buildings, homes and machinery until 1999, when it was banned. This means that asbestos is common in the general environment. However, working directly with asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) can give personal exposures to airborne asbestos that are much higher than normal environmental levels. Repeated occupational exposures can give rise to a substantial cumulative exposure over time. This will increase the risk of developing an asbestos-related disease in the future.
The majority of the current fatal cases from asbestos exposure (approximately 4000 deaths per year) are associated with very high exposures from past industrial processes and installation of asbestos products

Company failed surveyor killed by reversing lorry

A leading engineering and construction company has been fined £250,000 for safety failings after a surveyor was killed by a reversing lorry during work to widen the M25 near Dartford.

Richard Caddock, 38, from Bexleyheath, London, was talking on a mobile phone and could not hear the approaching truck above the noise of nearby motorway traffic, when he was hit from behind on 8 April 2008.

The Health and Safety Executive today prosecuted his employer Costain Limited for failing to ensure adequate precautions were in place to separate the movements of people and vehicles.

Maidstone Crown Court heard that Mr Caddock, of Bexleyheath, London, had left a parked van and was walking northbound along a section of the central reservation closed off as part of a £65 million scheme to ease congestion between junctions 1b to 3.

As he talked on the phone, a tipper lorry delivering crushed stone entered the same section and reversed northbound. Mr Craddock had walked approximately 30m when the truck hit him.

The surveyor sustained multiple injuries as a result of being run over by the eight wheel vehicle and was pronounced dead at the scene.

After the hearing HSE Inspector Melvyn Stancliffe said:

"This was a terrible tragedy that could easily have been avoided had Costain Limited implemented basic safety precautions.

"Mr Caddock may have been distracted on the phone, but the drone of nearby traffic was such that he would have struggled to hear the reversing alarm on the lorry regardless. Quite simply the two should never have been allowed to be in the same place at the same time.

"The movement of people and vehicles on construction sites requires careful planning and effective control. It must be considered a critical part of transport management. This case highlights that a failure to be in control can have devastating consequences."

Costain Limited, of Vanwall Business Park in Maidenhead, pleaded guilty to breaching 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 in connection to the death. In addition to the £250,000 fine, the company was ordered to pay £45,000 in costs

Poor construction site management lands firm in court

An Edgware-based construction company and its director have been fined after carrying out unsafe demolition and construction work at a house in Surrey.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Laxmi Developments Ltd and its director, Vijay Madhaparia, of Tavistock Road, Edgware, for failing to comply with a Prohibition Notice (PN), failing to provide adequate safety protection for employees and failing to carry out an asbestos survey on a property before demolition.

Redhill Magistrates' Court heard that during a visit to a building site at Mellow Close, Banstead, on 23 June 2011, an HSE inspector was confronted with such poor standards, he consequently served a PN and three Improvement Notices on the firm.

The PN was issued as the inspector found workers knocking down the house at first floor level with no edge protection to prevent falls. Though aware of the requirement for scaffolding and edge protection, Mr Madhaparia had instructed workers to go ahead with the demolition without these measures in place.

The three Improvement Notices were served to ensure sufficient demolition planning was carried out, to improve the welfare facilities on the site and to ensure the site supervisor was competent to carry out the works.

However, on the 6 September 2011, photographs were sent to HSE showing the PN being contravened and the same poor demolition practices continuing on site. HSE telephoned Mr Madhaparia to discuss the previous PN and to remind him of the dangers of working at height.

An HSE inspector visited the site again on 3 October 2011 and standards at the site were again found to be very poor. Two further PNs were issued for the risk of a fall from height and unsafe electrics on the site. After this visit, HSE was made aware that workers were continuing to work from height with no protection.

The court was told that in addition to the earlier offences, Mr Madhaparia had also failed to produce an asbestos survey prior to the demolition, despite HSE inspectors having requested one. This clear breach of asbestos regulations was aggravated because the site is in a residential area and next to a school. It was also discovered that much of the waste was burnt, potentially increasing the dispersal range of any asbestos fibres.

HSE's inspector Russell Beckett said:

"The disregard for health and safety shown by Vijay Madhaparia and his company was shocking. This man exposed workers and the site's neighbours - including young children - to appalling risks and the management of health and safety was non-existent even at the most basic level.

"There was a complete disregard for the safety of both workers and the public. Even after a Prohibition Notice had been served at the site workers were instructed to continue to work in exactly the same way.

"For anyone to conduct themselves or their business in this way is completely unacceptable and HSE will have no hesitation in bringing perpetrators before the courts."

Laxmi Developments Ltd, of Tavistock Road, Edgware, London, pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) and section 33(1)(g) of the Health and Safety etc at Work Act 1974 and Regulation 5 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. The firm was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay the full costs of £11,930.

Vijay Madhaparia, of Tavistock Road, Edgware, London, pleaded guilty to breaching section 37(1) of the Health and Safety etc. at Work Act by virtue of breaching section 33(1)(g) of the Health and Safety etc. at Work Act 1974 and Regulation 5 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act. He was fined £1,500 and disqualified from acting as a company director for three years

Firm prosecuted after worker falls through fragile roof light

A Tottenham Hale futon manufacturer has been prosecuted after a worker fell through a fragile roof light during poorly-managed maintenance work.

The Futon Limited employee, who does not wish to be identified, fractured his spinal column and suffered a collapsed lung as a result of the fall at the company’s Cannon Factory, on Ashley Road, on 9 October 2009.

Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard today (14 March) that the employee accessed the factory roof to clear leaves from a roof valley using a man-riding cage mounted on a forklift truck.

He had only moved a couple of feet from the edge of the roof when he stepped onto a plastic roof light that gave way. He fell approximately 6.5metres to the warehouse floor after hitting fluorescent roof lighting on the way down.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) revealed that Futon Limited had an approved contractor to carry out work at height of this nature, but the company neglected to use them on this occasion.

Using a non-integrated working platform attached to a forklift was a significant failing according to evidence presented by HSE, because it is a platform to work from rather than a platform for accessing other places at height.

Futon Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 in relation to the incident. The company was fined £6,000 and ordered to pay £14,635 in costs.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Jack Wilby said:

"This man was extremely fortunate not to have been killed or more seriously injured as a result of his fall.

"It was poorly-managed activity that could and should have been left to the professionals, as Futon Limited was only too aware, and as such the incident was entirely preventable.

"I hope today’s hearing serves as a further reminder of the risks posed by working at height, especially when working on or near fragile roofs with sky lights.

PAT - Portable appliance testing FAQs

What is portable appliance testing?       

Portable appliance testing (PAT) is the term used to describe the examination of electrical appliances and equipment to ensure they are safe to use. Most electrical safety defects can be found by visual examination but some types of defect can only be found by testing. However, it is essential to understand that visual examination is an essential part of the process because some types of electrical safety defect can't be detected by testing alone.

A relatively brief user check (based upon simple training and perhaps assisted by the use of a brief checklist) can be a very useful part of any PAT scheme. However, more formal visual inspection and testing by a competent person may also be required at appropriate intervals, depending upon the type of equipment and the environment in which it is used.

How frequently do I need to carry out PAT Testing?

The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 require that any electrical equipment that has the potential to cause injury is maintained in a safe condition. However, the Regulations do not specify what needs to be done, by whom or how frequently. The frequency of inspection and testing depends upon the type of equipment and the environment it is used in. For example, a power tool used on a construction site should be examined more frequently than a lamp in a hotel bedroom.

What records do I need to keep?

There is no legal requirement to label equipment that has been inspected or tested, nor is there a requirement to keep records of these activities. However, a record and / or labelling can be a useful management tool for monitoring and reviewing the effectiveness of the maintenance scheme – and to demonstrate that a scheme exists

Who should carry out PAT Testing?

The person doing testing work needs to competent to do it. In many low-risk environments, a sensible (competent) member of staff can undertake visual inspections if they have enough knowledge and training. However, when undertaking combined inspection and testing, a greater level of knowledge and experience is needed, and the person will need

• the right equipment to do the tests
• the ability to use this test equipment properly
• the ability to properly understand the test results

Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) Change – 6 April 2012

From 6 April 2012, subject to Parliamentary approval, RIDDOR’s over three day injury reporting requirement will change. From then the trigger point will increase from over three days’ to over seven days’ incapacitation (not counting the day on which the accident happened).

Incapacitation means that the worker is absent or is unable to do work that they would reasonably be expected to do as part of their normal work.

Employers and others with responsibilities under RIDDOR must still keep a record of all over three day injuries – if the employer has to keep an accident book, then this record will be enough.

The deadline by which the over seven day injury must be reported will increase to 15 days from the day of the accident.
   

COSHH and engineering workers - key messages

Substances hazardous to health in engineering include:

• dusts from mechanical cutting, shaping and abrasive blasting;
• gases and fumes from welding, soldering, and cutting;
• mists and germs in metalworking fluids;
• lubricants, adhesives, paints, degreasing and stripping fluids;
• plating and pickling fluids, and molten salt baths;
• fluid treatment products.

Control measures include:

• dust, fume or vapour extraction;
• respirators;
• fluid maintenance;
• skin checks.

You may need to use health surveillance (Check employees health for any adverse effects related to work. May involve checking skin for dermatitis or asking questions about breathing and may need to done by a doctor or nurse.)

Can a person be left alone at their place of work?

There are no absolute restrictions on working alone; it will depend on the findings of a risk assessment.

There are two main pieces of legislation that will apply:

The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974: Section 2 sets out a duty of care on employers to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their employees whilst they are at work.

The Management of Health and Safety at work Regulations 1999: Regulation 3 states that every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of -

• the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work; and
• the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking

 
Although there is no general legal prohibition on working alone, the broad duties of the HSW Act and MHSW Regulations still apply. These require identifying hazards of the work, assessing the risks involved, and putting measures in place to avoid or control the risks.

Control measures may include instruction, training, supervision, protective equipment etc. Employers should take steps to check that control measures are used and review the risk assessment from time to time to ensure it is still adequate.

When risk assessment shows that it is not possible for the work to be done safely by a lone worker, arrangements for providing help or back-up should be put in place. Where a lone worker is working at another employer's workplace, that employer should inform the lone worker's employer of any risks and the control measures that should be taken. This helps the lone worker's employer to assess the risks.

Risk assessment should help decide the right level of supervision. There are some high-risk activities where at least one other person may need to be present. Examples include some high-risk confined space working where a supervisor may need to be present, as well as someone dedicated to the rescue role, and electrical work at or near exposed live conductors where at least two people are sometimes required.

Lone workers should not be at more risk than other employees. This may require extra risk-control measures. Precautions should take account of normal work and foreseeable emergencies, e.g. fire, equipment failure, illness and accidents. Employers should identify situations where people work alone and ask questions such as:

• Does the workplace present a special risk to the lone worker?
• Is there a safe way in and a way out for one person? Can any temporary access equipment which is necessary, such as portable ladders or trestles, be safely handled by one person?
• Can all the plant, substances and goods involved in the work be safely handled by one person? Consider whether the work involves lifting objects too large for one person or whether more than one person is needed to operate essential controls for the safe running of equipment.
• Is there a risk of violence?
• Are women especially at risk if they work alone?
• Are young workers especially at risk if they work alone?
• Is the person medically fit and suitable to work alone?
• What happens if the person becomes ill, has an accident or there is an emergency?

Questions about the new Work at Height Regulations 2005

Do the new Work at Height Regulations 2005 ban the use of ladders?

The Work at Height Regulations 2005 do not ban ladders. They require that ladders should only be considered where a risk assessment has shown that the use of other more suitable work equipment is not appropriate because of the low risk, and short duration of the task or considerations of where the work is located.

HSC accepts the practicalities of the use of ladders for work at height, and the fact that they are commonly used in a wide variety of situations. Ladders are used in almost all employment sectors, sometimes for purposes other than those for which they were designed.

Schedule 6 of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 deals with the requirements for ladders and states:

’Schedule 6 Requirements for Ladders:

1. Every employer shall ensure that a ladder is used for work at height only if a risk assessment under regulation 3 of the Management Regulations has demonstrated that the use of more suitable work equipment is not justified because of the low risk and -
   • the short duration of use; or
   • existing features on site which he cannot alter.
2. Any surface upon which a ladder rests shall be stable, firm, of sufficient strength and of suitable composition safely to support the ladder so that its rungs or steps remain horizontal, and any loading intended to be placed on it.
3. A ladder shall be so positioned as to ensure its stability during use.
4. A suspended ladder shall be attached in a secure manner and so that, with the exception of a flexible ladder, it cannot be displaced and swinging is prevented.
5. A portable ladder shall be prevented from slipping during use by -
   • securing the stiles at or near their upper or lower ends;
   • an effective anti-slip or other effective stability device; or
   • any other arrangement of equivalent effectiveness.
6. A ladder used for access shall be long enough to protrude sufficiently above the place of landing to which it provides access, unless other measures have been taken to ensure a firm handhold.
7. No interlocking or extension ladder shall be used unless its sections are prevented from moving relative to each other while in use.
8. A mobile ladder shall be prevented from moving before it is stepped on.
9. Where a ladder or run of ladders rises a vertical distance of 9 metres or more above its base, there shall, where reasonably practicable, be provided at suitable intervals sufficient safe landing areas or rest platforms.
10. Every ladder shall be used in such a way that -
    • a secure handhold and secure support are always available to the user; and
    • the user can maintain a safe handhold when carrying a load unless, in the case of a step ladder, the maintenance of a handhold is not practicable when a load is carried, and a risk assessment under regulation 3 of the Management Regulations has demonstrated that the use of a stepladder is justified because of -
      • the low risk; and
      • the short duration of use.

       

 

Council fined after worker loses arm in wood chipper

Durham County Council has been prosecuted for safety failings after a grounds-man's arm was severed in a wood chipper machine.

The 25-year-old council worker, from Ferryhill, who does not wish to be named, was cutting back bushes near Atherton Close, Spennymoor when the incident occurred on 4 August 2009.

The court heard, he was feeding the trimmings from the bushes into a mobile power-fed wood chipper when his glove or sleeve became caught pulling his left arm into the machine. Colleagues were able to shut off the power but his arm had been severed at the shoulder.

He was airlifted to The James Cook University Hospital but surgeons could only treat the shoulder wound and were unable to save any part of his arm. He has found life extremely difficult since the incident and continues to suffer both mentally and physically.

Victoria Wise, prosecuting on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), told Darlington Magistrates' Court that an investigation had found that either the injured worker's gloves or his high-visibility vest had become entangled in the trimmings he was feeding into the wood chipper.

This was a well-documented hazard but the risk assessment carried out by Durham County Council had failed to take it into consideration. It also failed to follow published guidance on the control measures required when using wood chippers.

Durham County Council, of County Hall, Durham was fined £13,000 and ordered to pay £8,212.50 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Speaking after the case, HSE Inspector Victoria Wise, commented:

"This was a tragic but avoidable incident that resulted in a young man experiencing a traumatic loss.

"Anyone who has reason to use machines like this should take note of the harm they can cause. It is essential that the machine has the appropriate safeguards and is adequately maintained. Operators should have had the relevant training and be provided with the correct personal protective equipment.

"Specific health and safety guidance on the use of wood chippers was produced in April 2003 which clearly advises the use of non-snag outer clothing and gloves that are close fitting or tucked into the sleeves to stop them being caught on the material as it is fed into the chipper.

"This young man was lucky not to be killed as a result of this incident, which could have easily been avoided had Durham County Council followed this guidance."

Treework, which includes the use of wood chippers, is a high risk industry. Between April 2006 and March 2011 there were 15 fatalities and more than 80 incidents involving major injuries

Wells cathedral school fined after loft hatch fall

Wells Cathedral School has been fined after one of its employees fell two and half metres through a loft hatch, breaking a shoulder blade and hitting her head.

South Somerset and Mendip Magistrates' Court heard that on 29 July 2011, the member of school staff, who asked not to be named, had gone into an attic space next to her office to help a colleague folding storage boxes.

The attic had two access points, a door on the same level in the bursary, and another via a ladder in the library leading to a ceiling hatch. On turning to leave the attic, the injured worker inadvertently stepped onto the hatch, which gave way, causing her to fall to the library below.

During the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecution, the court was told the injured woman's colleague had earlier been warned by a school facilities officer not to stand on the loft hatch as he felt it would not take a person's weight. The court heard though the injured worker had heard him warn her colleague about the hatch, she did not take in the information, as she had not planned to go into the attic at the time.

The HSE investigation into the incident found although the school had recognised there was a risk of falling through the hatch, no risk assessment had been carried out for working in the loft and no measures were in place to prevent members of staff from stepping onto the loft hatch.

HSE inspector James Lucas, who brought the prosecution, said after the sentencing:

"A member of the school's staff suffered a serious injury when she fell through the hatch, and the consequences could have been far worse.

"The school was obviously aware of the risk, as staff had been warned not to step on the hatch, and yet it failed to take simple measures to prevent such an incident occurring.

"The hatch didn't even need to be there as there was another form of access through the door on the same level. In the aftermath of the incident, the school boarded over the loft hatch, preventing anyone else falling through it, which is sensible but a little too late in this case."

Wells Cathedral School Ltd, of The Liberty, Wells, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £7,700 and £2,172 in costs

One in five construction sites fail safety inspections

One in five construction sites failed safety checks during the first five days of an intensive inspection initiative in Merseyside and Cheshire.

Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) visited a total 167 sites in the two counties between 20 and 24 February, but 32 were found to have working practices that could put workers at risk.

The inspections were carried out as part of a month-long drive across Great Britain to improve health and safety in one of the country's most dangerous industries. Inspectors are targeting sites where refurbishment or repair work in being carried out, with the aim of reducing the risk of death, injury and ill health.

The primary focus is on high-risk activity including working at height and 'good order', such as ensuring sites are clean and tidy with clear access routes. Attention is also being paid to structural stability, public protection, fire safety issues and asbestos.

During the visits in Merseyside and Cheshire, HSE inspectors issued 29 Prohibition Notices stopping work activities immediately and 15 Improvement Notices requiring changes to be made to working practices. Half of the notices related to unsafe work being carried out at height.

Falls from height remain one of the most common causes of deaths and major injuries in the construction sector in Great Britain, with more than five incidents recorded every day.

The purpose of the initiative is to remind those working in construction that poor standards are unacceptable, and could result in enforcement action.

Neil Jamieson, HSE Principal Inspector for Construction, said:

"The majority of the sites we visited were meeting acceptable standards but sadly one in five weren't, putting the lives and health of workers at risk.

"The fact that half of the enforcement notices we issued related to work at height shows that companies still aren't doing enough to tackle one of the biggest causes of death and major injury in the sector.

"Implementing simple, inexpensive changes, or just a moment of extra thought, could prevent someone being killed or seriously injured. Employers should create an atmosphere where workers can raise concerns without fearing for their jobs."

HSE and smoke free legislation

HSE is not responsible for enforcing the legislation but will fully support Local Authority officers both in raising employers’ awareness of their responsibilities and in encouraging employers and employees to comply with the new legislation above. HSE inspectors will bring matters of concern to the attention of the employer, particularly if it involves a number of smokers or if there is a failure to display warning notices. Should the employer resist acting on this advice, the inspector will then bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate local authority. Any complaints received by HSE about the smoking ban will be referred to the appropriate local authority.

HSE will also support the new legislation by sending out flyers, and work in partnership with local authorities on health promotional matters as appropriate.

Premises exempt from smoke free legislation

Health and Safety legislation will continue to require employers, in premises permitted exemptions under the smoke-free law, to reduce the risk to the health and safety of their employees from second hand smoking to as low a level as is reasonably practicable.

In exempted premises, HSE will continue to promote a sensible, proportionate management of second hand smoking to as low a level as is reasonably practicable and to encourage employers to adopt smoking policies in the workplace which give precedence to the wishes of non-smokers not to be exposed to second hand smoking.

Even with new smoke-free legislation, HSE’s advice on protecting employees from the effects of second hand smoke remains unchanged in that:

1. Employers should have a specific policy on smoking in the workplace.
2. Employers should take action to reduce the risk to the health and safety of their employees from second hand smoke to as low a level as is reasonably practicable. 
3. Smoking policy should give priority to the needs of non-smokers who do not wish to breathe tobacco smoke.
4. Employers should consult their employees and their representatives on the appropriate smoking policy to suit their particular workplace.

Failure to identify asbestos put workers at risk

A Cardiff company has been fined for putting the health of demolition workers at risk after a building survey failed to identify the presence of asbestos.

Between 15 and 25 January 2010 PHH Environmental (UK) Ltd was commissioned to produce an asbestos survey on the soon to be demolished Old Castle Cinema in Merthyr Tydfil.

Merthyr Tydfil Magistrates' Court heard that PHH's client relied on this survey to help its demolition company plan the work. But once demolition was underway, workers discovered asbestos and found they had disturbed it.

PHH Environmental (UK) Limited, of Titan House, Cardiff Bay Business Centre, Lewis Road, Cardiff, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was today fined £5,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,000.

HSE inspector Steve Richardson investigated the case. He said:

"Anyone carrying out refurbishment or demolition work relies upon accurate asbestos surveys to reduce the risk of them being exposed to deadly asbestos fibres. It is essential that those surveys are comprehensive, intrusive and undertaken by competent persons - if not lives are needlessly put at risk."

Unsafe asbestos removal put people at risk

A building company in Bradford-on-Avon has been fined after it removed an asbestos insulation board (AIB) ceiling in an unsafe manner, leaving workers and residents at risk of exposure to asbestos fibres.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) told Chippenham Magistrates' Court that D B Construction (West Wilts) Ltd carried out unsafe work while refurbishing a house in Bradford-on-Avon between 29 November and 10 December 2010.

An AIB ceiling was removed in an uncontrolled manner, which put employees, subcontractors and the homeowners and their young children at risk of asbestos exposure.

The court heard an electrician on site raised concerns the ceiling boards being removed from could contain asbestos and he arranged for the material to be analysed before beginning work.

An analyst visited the site and advised work should cease until the contaminated area had been cleaned of asbestos debris. HSE later confirmed the ceiling boards contained both white and the more hazardous brown asbestos.

HSE found that DB Construction had failed to investigate whether asbestos was present in the building before work started and when removing the ceiling boards its employees and sub contractors failed to identify the material and broke up the boards releasing airborne asbestos fibres. The boards and debris were then removed in open bags and left in the garden in a breach of safety rules.

HSE inspector, Helena Tinton said after the prosecution:

"Asbestos widely known to be a hazardous material and asbestos fibre exposure is linked to a number of serious diseases, including cancer and scarring of the lungs. As such, work with materials containing higher risk asbestos, including asbestos insulation board, is a licensed activity with work only carried out by trained people under tightly controlled conditions.

"As a building contractor engaged in refurbishment work, D B Construction should have been aware of this and yet these ceiling boards were removed in an uncontrolled manner over a period of several hours, which resulted in the spread of airborne asbestos fibres inside and outside the property, leaving workers and the family at risk of exposure."

Film company fined after cameraman hurt on set

A production company has been fined after a cameraman fell more than three metres from the set of a forthcoming major film.

The 62-year-old was working on the set of 47 Ronin at Shepperton Studios, Middlesex, when he fell through an opening in the floor. The opening was for access to a raised area via stairs, but had not been guarded to prevent people falling through it.

The cameraman, who suffered bruising and suspected broken ribs, was employed by Warrior Productions Limited, which was responsible for the production of the film in the United Kingdom and was in control of the set.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation into the incident on 10 May 2010 found that because the film is set in 18th Century Japan the set had been built without edge protection to make it look authentic.  Temporary protection had been added in some areas but not where the cameraman fell. Guardrails were added immediately after the incident.

Warrior Productions Limited, of Prospect House, New Oxford Street, London, was fined £300, ordered to pay costs of £10,500 and ordered to pay the injured person £300 compensation for breaching Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

After the hearing HSE inspector Stephen Green said:

"At the time of the incident it was dark and there was no lighting on the platform. Numerous people had been or were still on the platform, and therefore were all exposed to the risk. The cameraman was lucky to escape with bruising and suspected cracked ribs as falls from a similar height can cause serious or even fatal injuries.

"The company was aware there were unguarded edges on the set. Some areas had temporary protection added, but there was no full assessment of the whole set. The guardrails fitted after the incident would have prevented the fall and were quick and easy to install.

"Alternatively other measures could have been put in place if the guardrails were visible on camera during filming."

Worker seriously burned after cutting through 11,000 volt cable in Worcester

Two companies have been fined after a demolition worker was engulfed in flames when he cut through a live 11,000 volt cable at an electricity substation in Worcester.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Birmingham firm DSM Demolition Ltd and Halesowen-based Gould Singleton Architects Ltd (GSA) following the incident on 14 July 2006.

Worcester Crown Court heard today that DSM was demolishing a metal casting foundry in Wainwright Road, Worcester, when employee Lee Harris, 35, was told to cut through a cable, which was connected to a switching unit on a substation on the site, which was still live.

As the machine he was using to cut through the cable came into contact with the live conductors, he was engulfed by flames, suffering 20 per cent burns, which have left him with permanent disabilities and requiring skin grafts.

HSE's investigation into the incident found that neither planning supervisor GSA nor demolition contractor DSM had made adequate checks to ensure that the electricity on the site had been disconnected.

GSA had told DSM that all services to the site had been terminated when actually the power supply remained live. DSM should have ensured that the electrical services had been disconnected before starting demolition, but failed to do so.

DSM Demolition Ltd, of Arden Road, Birmingham, was found guilty on 26 September 2011 of breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act. The company was today fined £40,000 and ordered to pay £100,000 costs.

Gould Singleton Architects Ltd, of Whitehall Road, Halesowen, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Regulation 15(3)(e) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994. The company was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £20,872 costs.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Tariq Khan said:

"Live electricity and gas services pose a serious risk of death or serious injury to demolition workers. It is essential that companies working in this sector take proper precautions to protect their workers.

"Neither of the two companies prosecuted today had made adequate checks to ensure that the power supply to the cable required to be cut by Mr Harris had been terminated. Had they done so then this incident would never have happened and Mr Harris would not have suffered such serious injuries.

"Construction, design and management co-ordinators must ensure that the information they pass on to contractors which could affect the safety of their workers is correct. Likewise, demolition contractors must follow safe systems of work at all times and ensure they check information provided to them about services on site with independent, competent sources."

Low take-up of Fit for Work services revealed

                              

Both the volume and profile of individuals who engaged with a trial of services aimed at helping workers return to, or stay in, work, were not in line with expectations, according to an evaluation of the pilots' first year in operation.

Conceived on the back of Dame Carol Black's review of the health of the working-age population, the previous Government launched a trial of Fit for Work Services (FFWS) in March 2010. The services, which cover 11 diverse areas of Britain, provide personalised, case-managed support for workers in the early stages of sickness absence, or ill health in order to expedite a return to work and support job retention. All services provided clinical and non-clinical support.

Presenting its findings from the first year of the evaluation, a Government-commissioned consortium - including the likes of the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research - said it is still unclear whether the pilots have been helping individuals get back to work quicker than they otherwise would have done, although qualitative evidence from interviews indicated that they had.

The report's authors note that by providing a range of services to support employees, there is a danger that “they will wait until they have had their 'treatment' before returning to the workplace”. Conversely, they point out that when they do return to work, this may be “more sustained, if the issues causing or exacerbating the absence have been resolved”.

By the end of March 2011, 6726 people had taken up the services - about 40 per cent of the expected total. Nearly all clients were employed and two-thirds were workplace 'presentees' (still in work) rather than absentees, who were the original target group. One of the main reasons for the lower-than-expected take-up was the difficulties encountered in generating referrals from GPs and employers.

Most clients had either a mental-health condition, or a musculoskeletal disorder, with the majority suffering from more than one health condition. More than half of the clients had work-related concerns, such as lack of support at work, harassment and bullying, and a fear that they could not cope with work demands. Most thought their health condition had been made worse by work.

Some 62 per cent of clients who were supported in the first year had been discharged by the end of March 2011, and 74 per cent of these individuals were back at work by the time they left the service.

Commenting on the findings, Jim Hillage, director of research at the IES, said: “This kind of support is particularly useful for smaller businesses without the access to occupational health (OH) that larger organisations have. The interim evaluation shows that this kind of intervention has the potential to fill the gap between OH and the health service. The final evaluation report will assess the impact of the service on overall sickness absence and whether the benefits outweigh the cost.”

Seven pilots have received funding to continue to run for at least a second year. The final evaluation report will also examine the role of employers in assisting return to work and the issues the services face in helping employees negotiate their return.

The full report can be accessed at: http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/report_abstracts/rr_abstracts/rra_792.asp

Yorkshire trailer firm fined £100,000 over driver's death

A worker died when a six-metre steel machine landed on top of him after it was dislodged from overhead brackets at a factory in East Yorkshire.

Ronald Wood, 59, from Holme-on-Spalding-Moor, was struck on the head by the steel vacuum lifter, which weighed two-thirds of a tonne, when it was knocked from its mountings by a trailer being towed out of the Montracon factory.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation following the fatal incident exposed serious safety failings at the company's premises on Holme Road in Market Weighton.

Hull Crown Court heard that Mr Wood, a driver and long-standing employee of Montracon, was standing underneath the steel lifter with a fellow worker as a large trailer, which was being towed out of the factory, hit the brackets holding the machine in place. The impact knocked it loose and it fell more than three and a half metres - landing on top of Mr Wood. His colleague escaped with only a minor injury.

Mr Wood, who was a grandfather, never regained consciousness and died in hospital the same day.

Montracon Ltd., registered at Carr Hill, Doncaster, South Yorkshire, pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to two breaches of Health and Safety legislation. It was fined a total of £100,000 and ordered to pay £33,030 in costs.

Inspector Steven Kay, who carried out HSE's investigation, said after the hearing:

"There were obvious failures in basic safety precautions, sadly leading to an unnecessary death and the tragic bereavement of a family.

"If Montracon had a suitable plan to control the movement of trailers in the workshop area, then they would have realised it was not safe to manoeuvre a trailer past a heavy piece of equipment that could be dislodged. But it failed to consider the risks or take basic and inexpensive precautions relating to storing heavy equipment at height.

"Work changes had also taken place in the factory which should have led the firm to re-think the risks, but it did not. Whenever work activity changes, then risks must be reassessed.

"Montracon also failed to follow up several minor incidents which, had they been investigated, could have led to action to prevent this tragedy. All employers need to have a system to record near misses and investigate them. The resulting information could prevent loss of life."

In a statement to the court on behalf of Mr Wood's family, his daughter Emma Wood said:

"It is so difficult to put into words the devastation caused to our family by Dad's death. It was traumatic beyond belief and it still is...like a horrendous nightmare. We are all in total disbelief with what has happened and completely lost without him.

"To many he was a friend and work colleague - to us he was a husband, dad, granddad and great-granddad who we miss dearly every day."

There were five deaths and more than 550 major injuries in the manufacturing sector in Yorkshire and the Humber according to the latest 2020/11 HSE statistics. A further 1,900 less severe injuries were recorded