Packaging company fined after worker hit by lorry

The Corrugated Case Company Ltd has been fined after an employee was seriously injured by a heavy goods vehicle at its site on Pilsley Road in Danesmoor, Chesterfield.

Pete Newsum, 55, of Chesterfield was returning to site from neighbouring premises after his lunch break on 14 December 2010 when the incident happened. The site was particularly congested with vehicles due to recent bad weather, which had prevented deliveries and collections in the days prior to the incident.

As he approached the company's yard on foot, a heavy goods vehicle was manoeuvring to allow another vehicle to move. The man followed the kerb into the company site and waited for the HGV to reverse past him, down the yard. When the vehicle passed him, Mr Newsum stepped off the kerb and out in front of the vehicle, assuming it would continue going backwards. At the same time, the HGV stopped reversing and moved forwards, knocking the man to the ground and dragging him underneath the vehicle.

A member of the public passing on the main road noticed the high visibility jacket worn by the man beneath the lorry and alerted the lorry driver, who immediately stopped the vehicle.

Mr Newsum suffered damage to his lower spine, fractures to his pelvis, ribs and leg, a damaged shoulder and cuts to the head. He was resuscitated twice in hospital and currently suffers from post-traumatic epilepsy, breathing difficulties, and mobility difficulties. He is still unable to work and it is not yet known whether he will be able to return to his job as a fork lift truck driver.

Today, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) told North East Derbyshire magistrates that the company had failed to proactively risk assess and implement control measures for their workplace transport.

After the hearing HSE inspector Fiona Coffey said:

"On the day of the incident, the site was congested with unusually high levels of traffic yet there were no pedestrian crossing points, speed restrictions, mirrors or signage, or any other means of segregating pedestrians and vehicles.

"The company had been visited by HSE six months prior to the incident and had been given verbal instruction on how to better control workplace transport, which a Director and the Health and Safety Manager had agreed to. As a result of the company's failure to implement this guidance, their employee suffered painful and life-changing injuries.

"Vehicles at work continue to be a major cause of fatal and major injuries. Last year 27 workers were killed after being hit by a moving vehicle and more than 1,800 were seriously injured."

The Corrugated Case Company, of Pilsley Road, Danesmoor, Chesterfield, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 17(1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 and Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Today magistrates fined the company £8,000 and ordered it to pay costs of £7,435.

Wigan landlord sentenced over gas safety risk

A Wigan landlord has been prosecuted for putting the life of a tenant at risk by falsifying a gas safety document.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) took legal action against Terence McBride after it discovered he had changed the dates on the record for an annual gas safety check to suggest it was still valid.

Trafford Magistrates' Court in Sale heard his tenant contacted the authorities after suspecting a carbon monoxide leak at the house she rented on Bell Lane in Pemberton in May 2011. A National Grid engineer visited the property and sealed off the gas supply after finding a leak.

The court was told Mr McBride had arranged a gas safety check at the house through his letting agents in April 2009, which expired a year later. When he decided to hire a new agent in April 2011, he provided a copy of the gas safety document with the dates altered so that it appeared to still be current.

A tenant moved into the property on 3 May 2011, but it was three weeks before the gas leak was detected.

Terence McBride pleaded guilty to a breach of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 by failing to arrange an annual gas safety check.

Mr McBride, of Sawyer Drive in Ashton-in-Makerfield, received a community order requiring him to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work in the next 12 months. He was also ordered to pay £600 towards the cost of the prosecution at a hearing on 13 April 2012.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Philip Strickland said:

"If Terence McBride's tenant hadn't contacted National Grid after suspecting a carbon monoxide leak then I dread to think what could have happened to her.

"It is a legal requirement on all landlords to have an annual gas safety check and Mr McBride put the life of his tenant at risk by failing to arrange for a registered gas engineer to visit the property for more than two years.

"This case should act as a warning to landlords that if they put their tenants' lives at risk by ignoring the law then we will take action against them."

Around 20 people die every year in the UK from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by unsafe gas appliances. Landlords are legally required to arrange an annual inspection of their properties by an engineer registered with the Gas Safe Register.

Paul Johnston, Chief Executive of the Gas Safe Register, added:

"Some landlords may think that failing to do an annual check on gas appliances, or not having a landlord's gas safety record, isn't that important or may save them some money.

"What they fail to realise is that these checks are legal requirements and are in place to save lives. If you are a landlord, make sure you stay on the right side of the law when it comes to gas and always use a Gas Safe registered engineer."

Homeowners and landlords can find a registered gas engineer, or check someone is registered, by visiting www.gassaferegister.co.uk .

Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012

The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 came into force on 6 April 2012, updating previous asbestos regulations to take account of the European Commission's view that the UK had not fully implemented the EU Directive on exposure to asbestos (Directive 2009/148/EC).

In practice the changes are fairly limited. They mean that some types of non-licensed work with asbestos now have additional requirements, i.e. notification of work, medical surveillance and record keeping. All other requirements remain unchanged.

What has stayed the same?

• If existing asbestos containing materials are in good condition and are not likely to be damaged, they may be left in place; their condition monitored and managed to ensure they are not disturbed.
• If you're responsible for maintenance of non-domestic premises, you have a 'duty to manage' the asbestos in them, to protect anyone using or working in the premises from the risks to health that exposure to asbestos causes.
• If you want to do any building or maintenance work in premises, or on plant or equipment that might contain asbestos, you need to identify where it is and its type and condition; assess the risks, and manage and control these risks.
• The requirements for licensed work remain the same: in the majority of cases, work with asbestos needs to be done by a licensed contractor. This work includes most asbestos removal, all work with sprayed asbestos coatings and asbestos lagging and most work with asbestos insulation and asbestos insulating board (AIB).
• If you are carrying out non-licensed asbestos work, this still requires effective controls.
• The control limit for asbestos is 0.1 asbestos fibres per cubic centimetre of air (0.1 f/cm3). The control limit is not a 'safe' level and exposure from work activities involving asbestos must be reduced to as far below the control limit as possible.
• Training is mandatory for anyone liable to be exposed to asbestos fibres at work. This includes maintenance workers and others who may come into contact with or disturb asbestos (e.g. cable installers), as well as those involved in asbestos removal work.

What has changed?

• From 6 April 2012, some non-licensed work needs to be notified to the relevant enforcing authority.
• From 6 April 2012, brief written records should be kept of non-licensed work, which has to be notified e.g. copy of the notification with a list of workers on the job, plus the level of likely exposure of those workers to asbestos. This does not require air monitoring on every job, if an estimate of degree of exposure can be made based on experience of similar past tasks or published guidance.
• By April 2015, all workers/self employed doing notifiable non-licensed work with asbestos must be under health surveillance by a Doctor. Workers who are already under health surveillance for licensed work need not have another medical examination for non-licensed work. BUT medicals for notifiable non-licensed work are not acceptable for those doing licensed work.
• Some modernisation of language and changes to reflect other legislation, e.g. the prohibition section has been removed, as the prohibition of supply and use of asbestos is now covered by REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals Regulations 2006).

Building firm fined after passer-by hit by falling equipment

A Hertfordshire building company has been fined for injuring a woman as she waited for a bus.

Concentra Ltd, based in Waltham Cross, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after inspectors found that the incident on 26 September 2008 was preventable.

Westminster Magistrates' Court heard yesterday (18 April) how a member of the public was waiting for a bus on York Road, London, when she was hit by a piece of machinery being lifted to the fifth floor of a nearby office block.

The woman suffered severe multiple injuries including several broken bones and cuts and swelling to her head. She was in hospital for eight days and the injuries have affected her work and studies.

The building was being refurbished and instead of traditional scaffolding being used on the site, a mast climber had been erected, which allowed workers to be raised and lowered on the outside of the building.

The HSE investigation found that a crane and lifting slings were being used to lift a 380kg, 0.6m square by 2m high, air handling unit. The crane was not fitted correctly and during the lift, the unit hit a mast climber and was knocked out of its sling causing it to fall from height and hit the member of the public.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Bose Ogunsekan said:

"Concentra Ltd failed in its duty to manage the safety of persons affected by its activities. A high risk activity such as using a crane to lift this sort of load on the site should have been fully risk assessed during the planning stages of the project.

"In addition, further measures that would have also protected members of the public from site traffic, such as an alternative pedestrian route and a temporary bus stop elsewhere, could have prevented injury to passers by."

Concentra Ltd of High Street, Waltham Cross, Hertfordshire, EN8 7D, were found guilty of breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 in relation to the incident. The firm was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £21,000

Recession has made CDM clients king                                    

The economic downturn has chipped away at the confidence of some contractors, designers and CDM coordinators, who are now less prepared to challenge clients over project demands than they might have been when the economy was in good shape.

This is one of the key findings from a major evaluation of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007, carried out on behalf of the HSE by Frontline Consultants.

When the Regulations came into force in April 2007, it was agreed that, following a period of operation, they would be evaluated to establish: to what extent they had met their objectives; and the cost implications for the construction industry of compliance. Completion of the evaluation by April 2012 was also a recommendation of the Löfstedt Report, which emphasised the need for a clearer expression of duties, a reduction of bureaucracy, and tailored guidance for small projects.

According to the report’s authors, the results of the evaluation show that:

• CDM 2007 has gone a long way to meeting its objectives, but some concerns remain within the industry;
• construction design, management and site practices have improved between 2006 and 2010;
• a cost impact was associated with CDM 2007, but respondents rated the benefits obtained higher than the costs; and
• industry practice was found to have a significant influence on how CDM 2007 is implemented.

On this final point, the report emphasises the negative impact of the recession on good practice. Industry stakeholders questioned as part of the evaluation told the researchers that when tendering for work, offering the lowest price was often more important than having specific competence.

Respondents also noted that both budgets and timescales were being reduced as part of the procurement process and, as a result, effort was being focused primarily on the core activities of ‘getting the work done’, rather than the values expressed in CDM of coordination and cooperation.

“In the current economic climate, purchasers have the upper hand,” the report’s authors concluded. “This can lead to contractors, designers and coordinators being unwilling to challenge a client’s demands. As a result, actions can be implemented that are not compatible with either the spirit or letter of CDM 2007 – for example, starting work without the appointment of a coordinator, or starting work on site without the required pre­construction information, or planning.

The report also highlights that CDM has had little effect on reducing paperwork and bureaucracy – despite one of the legislation’s key objectives being to simplify the assessment of competence for both individuals and organisations.

Respondents expressed concerns about the proliferation of competence assessment schemes, specifically that:

• both the registration fees and the time taken to complete the registration process were too much of a burden;
• where procurers specified the need for organisations to be registered with a particular scheme, they would not accept registration with an alternative
• scheme as evidence that the competence requirements had been met; and
• further submissions need to be completed every year or so to keep the registration live – costing more time and money.

Concerns were also expressed that some organisations were trying to use clauses in contracts to wriggle out of their CDM responsibilities – seemingly unaware that the requirements of CDM 2007 are based in criminal law and outweigh any requirements in contracts between duty-holders.

The report makes no recommendations for changes to CDM 2007, but the HSE notes that the evidence it contains will inform policy development in this area.

Shovel loader broke teen’s foot in 16 places            
   

A recycling company has been prosecuted after the tyre of a 16-tonne shovel loader ran over a teenager’s foot as he was sorting waste at its site in Kent.

The HSE’s investigation found that Countrystyle Recycling had no system to segregate moving vehicles and pedestrians. Instead, it simply told employees to stay clear of manoeuvring vehicles.

When the accident happened in February 2010, it was raining, and the windscreen wipers on the shovel were not working. The heater in the cab was also broken, which meant the windows steamed up, reducing visibility.

Workers had to start the vehicle using a screwdriver and it would not always go into gear properly. There was also a broken wing mirror, and the loader had no reversing lights, and no reversing CCTV or convex mirror.

Nineteen-year-old Daniel Brown, who has had to give up a potential career in Motocross, broke 16 bones in his foot – one for every tonne of weight that rolled over it – and he is still suffering with pain and arthritis.

Last week, Maidstone magistrates fined Countrystyle £10,000 with costs of £6221 after it pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act

Dichloromethane (DCM) Restriction

A new ban on some supply and use of paint strippers containing the hazardous substance ‘dichloromethane’ (DCM, and also known as methylene chloride) is coming into force.  For the purposes of this ban, the term 'paint stripper' is taken to mean DCM (or mixtures containing it) intended for stripping paint, varnish or lacquer.

Pure DCM (or mixtures containing it) sold and used for other purposes (e.g. degreasing) aren’t banned and can continue to be sold and used (although not for stripping paint).

The new ban makes a distinction between three types of use:
     
‘Industrial’ use of paint strippers in ‘industrial installations’ (i.e. facilities where paint stripping takes place) – this is allowed to continue as long as certain safe working practices are followed.
‘Professional’ use by workers where this takes place away from an industrial installation.  This will be banned, but UK can choose to allow continued safe use by specifically trained professionals.
‘Consumer’ use by the general public, such as DIY.   Supply to consumers is banned.

Industrial use

Use of DCM-based paint strippers can continue in industrial installations so long as certain safe working practices are followed. Supply for these uses is also permitted. The required conditions for continued industrial use are listed in paragraph 4 of the restriction text:

(a) effective ventilation in all processing areas, in particular for the wet processing and the drying of stripped articles: local exhaust ventilation at strip tanks supplemented by forced ventilation in those areas, so as to minimise exposure and to ensure compliance, where technically feasible, with relevant occupational exposure limits;

(b) measures to minimise evaporation from strip tanks comprising: lids for covering strip tanks except during loading and unloading; suitable loading and unloading arrangements for strip tanks; and wash tanks with water or brine to remove excess solvent after unloading;

(c) measures for the safe handling of dichloromethane in strip tanks comprising: pumps and pipework for transferring paint stripper to and from strip tanks; and suitable arrangements for safe cleaning of tanks and removal of sludge;

(d) personal protective equipment that complies with Directive 89/686/EEC comprising: suitable protective gloves, safety goggles and protective clothing; and appropriate respiratory protective equipment where compliance with relevant occupational exposure limits cannot be otherwise achieved;

(e) adequate information, instruction and training for operators in the use of such equipment.


Paint strippers supplied for industrial use must be labelled in accordance with either the CHIP Regulations or CLP, and must also be 'visibly, legibly and indelibly marked' with the text 'Restricted to industrial use and to professionals approved in certain EU Member States — verify where use is allowed.' Suppliers will wish to satisfy themselves that mixtures are being supplied for legal uses, in order to explain such a due diligence approach if challenged.

Professional (mobile) use

The ban first took effect on 6 December 2010.  Since then formulators of DCM-based paint strippers have not been allowed to put their products into the supply chain for use outside industrial installations. Suppliers could however continue to sell existing stocks to professionals or the public for a further year, until 6 December 2011. On the 6 June 2012 all use of DCM-based paint strippers by professionals outside industrial installations will have to cease.

DCM-based paint strippers are particularly effective at removing very durable coatings – including leaded paint – quickly and without damaging the substrate.  Along with normal paint stripping, DCM-based strippers are widely used the heritage, aerospace and maritime sectors, and for graffiti removal. HSE will consult in the next few months on taking up the derogation to allow continued professional use.  In order to do so, both the government and stakeholders would need to make certain arrangements.  Although we don’t expect to be able to take up the derogation in time for the 6 June 2012 deadline, subject to consultation these measures may be made available later.

Scaffold collapse injuries lead to fine

A former scaffolding company director has been fined after two employees were injured in a scaffold collapse.

A 26-year-old man working for Robert Leslie Butler fractured his left ankle and right heel as he jumped six metres from a scaffold tower at student accommodation on Radford Boulevard, Nottingham, on 24 January 2011, as it fell to the ground.

A second employee, 46, was working at a height of around 10 metres. He managed to hang on to the scaffold as it fell. It crashed into the building opposite and he was able to slide down to the ground, suffering minor injuries.

The men, both of whom have asked not to be named, were in the process of dismantling the scaffold.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found the scaffold tower had not been erected to industry standards and had not been fitted with adequate ties to secure it to the building.

Robert Leslie Butler, 46, of Owthorpe Close, Top Valley, Nottingham pleaded guilty breaching Regulations 4(1)(c) and 8(b)(ii) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 by virtue of Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Today Nottingham magistrates fined him a total of £3,000 and ordered him to pay costs of £2,000.

After the hearing HSE inspector Kevin Wilson said:

"The two men were extremely luck to survive this incident. There was no safe sequence of work in place to dismantle the tower. The fact the scaffold only had ties at the top meant that as soon as they were removed a collapse was inevitable.

"Work at height should be properly planned and a safe system of work developed. Mr Butler failed his employees in both respects."

At the time of the incident Mr Butler was director of RB & Son Scaffolding Limited. The company has since been dissolved

Construction firm fined after worker's narrow escape

A construction worker defied death after falling four metres from the cage of a 20-tonnes cherry-picker into the path of a moving bus, which then pushed him another 15 metres along the Euston Road.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted national construction firm Galliford Try Construction Limited for serious safety failings which led to Camden worker Leszek Soltysiak suffering severe injuries.

The employee was part of a two-man team brought in by Galliford Try to fix snagging issues at the iconic St Pancras Renaissance Hotel and Chambers, which had just undergone a £103 million restoration by the company.

Westminster Magistrates' Court heard the firm arranged for two workers from the logistics team to remove tape from the outside of an apartment window on the third floor of the residential block in the early hours of 4 March 2011.

As scaffolding had been removed from the site, the men had to move a cherrypicker from a compound in Euston Road to another in Midland Road to enable them to carry out the job. Mr Soltysiak began to reverse the machine out of the exit onto Euston Road, raising his operator platform to clear the fencing. Deciding it was clear, he continued backing out unaware that a double-decker bus had just turned into the road.

The second worker waved at the bus to try to get it to stop but it was dark and the bus driver saw nothing. The top of the bus hit the operator platform overhanging the road forcing the jib to slew across and hit a brick gate post. The collision catapulted the driver from the platform and he fell to the ground in front of the still moving bus.

The bus driver braked, thinking he had hit a tree and stopped about 15 metres further along. Mr Soltysiak was found partially underneath the front nearside. He suffered serious head, arm, pelvis and leg injuries and was only able to return to work earlier this year.

HSE's investigation found the incident could have been avoided if Galliford Try had fulfilled their duty to properly plan and supervise the work.

After the hearing (on 11 April) HSE Inspector Paul Hems said:

"This worker narrowly escaped death after a series of events which almost seem unbelievable but in fact could have proved fatal.

"A 14-metres long slow-moving machine, not suitable for use on a public highway, was moved against the flow of traffic on to a three-lane road. Both workers were without high visibility clothing and there were no visible warning lights on the cherry-picker despite it being early morning and still dark which made it, and the men, effectively invisible to the bus driver.

The dangers involved using cherry-pickers are well known and yet the company failed to ensure safe movement of the vehicle between different compounds at the site.

"The company also failed to provide adequate and relevant information and instruction to their employees."

Galliford Try Construction Limited, of Cowley Business Park, Uxbridge, Middlesex, was fined a total of £12,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £16,459.70 after pleading guilty to two serious breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Myth Busters Challenge Panel

"Health and Safety" is often incorrectly used as a convenient excuse to stop what are essentially sensible activities going ahead.
The Health and Safety Executive has set up an independent panel – the Myth Busters Challenge Panel - to scrutinize such decisions.

The Panel is chaired by the HSE Chair Judith Hackitt, with HSE Board member Robin Dahlberg as the Vice-Chair and they are supported by a pool of independent members who represent a wide range of interests. This includes small businesses, public safety, trade union, the insurance industry and many outside interests where day-to-day common sense decisions on risk management are made.

This Panel will look into complaints regarding the advice given by non-regulators such as insurance companies, health and safety consultants and employers and, quickly assess if a sensible and proportionate decision has been made. We want to make clear that "health and safety" is about managing real risks properly, not being risk averse and stopping people getting on with their lives.

If you think a decision or advice that you have been given in the name of health and safety is wrong, or disproportionate to what you are doing, you can complain to the panel. It will investigate and publish its findings on the HSE website

Leisure park worker trapped in trench collapse

A worker at a holiday park suffered serious injuries when a trench he was working in collapsed on top of him.

Grzegorz Waluszkowski, 40, was helping to lay a drainage pipe at the park on Lady's Mile Farm, Exeter Road, Dawlish on 23 July 2010, when the wall of the two metre deep trench caved in. He was dug out by others at the scene before the emergency services arrived but had suffered multiple fractures to his skull, jaw and cheekbones.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted the park operators Main Gate Leisure after an investigation into the incident found the company had failed to adequately plan the work or put the necessary safety measures in place.

Torquay Magistrates' Court heard Mr Waluszkowski, who lived on the site, was working on the trench with two directors of Main Gate Leisure Limited. The trench walls were propped-up with plywood and metal plate with a piece of softwood between the two sides holding them up. This gave way, and Mr Waluszkowski was trapped when one side of the trench collapsed.

Frantic effort were made by staff at the site to release Mr Waluszkowski, who was unconscious, using shovels and eventually one of the directors used an excavator to help to dig him out from  the rubble.

HSE Inspector, Jonathan Harris, said:

"The trench was clearly inadequately supported and the plywood and metal plate were no more than a rudimentary attempt to support the trench walls. Normally trench boxes would be used as shields whenever workers need to briefly enter a trench. These boxes can be rented from hire-companies.

"This incident could easily have led to a fatality and shows the vital importance of proper planning and adequate safety measures when carrying out this sort of work."

Main Gate Leisure Limited, of Lady's Mile Farm, Exeter Road, Dawlish, today pleaded guilty to a breach of Regulation 31 (1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. They were fined £5,000 and ordered to pay £2,198 in costs

New Asbestos Regulations Come into Force

The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 [1] will come into force on 6 April 2012, updating previous asbestos regulations to take account of the European Commission’s view that the UK had not fully implemented the EU Directive on exposure to asbestos (Directive 2009/148/EC).



In practice, the changes are fairly limited and mean that some types of non-licensed work with asbestos now have additional requirements, i.e. notification of work, medical surveillance and record keeping. All other requirements remain unchanged, e.g. relating to licensed work with asbestos, duty to manage, risk assessment, the asbestos control limit, control measures and training requirements.


Further information will be available from 6 April on HSE’s Asbestos website -


http://www.hse.gov.uk/asbestos/index.htm

Contracting firm and director fined after worker receives electric shock

A Hertfordshire contracting company and its managing director have been prosecuted for safety failings after a worker received an electric shock from a live junction box during poorly planned maintenance work in London.

Polish national Krzysztof Jabczanik was hospitalised in an induced coma as a result of the incident at a storage company on St Leonards Road, North Acton, on 4 August 2010. He also received serious burns to his left hand and suffered memory loss.

Westminster Magistrates' Court heard yesterday (7 March) that his employer Fras Contractors Limited, managed by Adam Fras, could and should have done more to protect the worker as he attempted to repair an external flood light.
The Health and Safety Executive presented evidence that the routine job was flawed in a number of ways.

Firstly, a ladder was placed on top of storage boxes underneath the junction box unit. These should have been moved to make space.

Secondly, the cover of the junction box was removed before the electrical circuit within was isolated. As a result Mr Jabczanik received an electric shock when he touched the live junction box with his left hand.

The work was supervised by Adam Fras, a registered electrical engineer who knew how to make the circuit safe but neglected to take appropriate action. He ran to isolate the power, but Mr Jabczanik was found unconscious at the foot of the ladder on top of the storage boxes.

Adam Fras pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 14 of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 in relation to the incident following the HSE investigation. He was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £1,000 in costs.
Fras Contractors Limited, of Station Road, Smallford, St Albans, pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. It was fined £1,500 with costs of £1,000.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Jack Wilby said:
"Adam Fras is a qualified electrician who really should have known better. He and his firm ignored the essentials, in this instance isolating the power and ensuring a ladder was used in a safe manner. As a result Mr Jabczanik was placed in totally unnecessary danger and he very nearly paid with his life.

"This case serves as a reminder of the risks from both electricity and working at height, and highlights that even experienced trades people should never underestimate the task in hand."

Fine for Nestle UK

Nestle have been fined £180K following an employee’s death.

Nazar Hussain died in December 2008 after his colleague started a machine at the Nestle factory in Halifax without realising that Mr. Hussain was inside.
The HSE investigation revealed that Mr. Hussain probably went into the machine as it was blocked due several large tins becoming jammed earlier in the day and triggering the audible alarm system.

When it sounded again, Mr. Hussain’s colleague walked all the way around the machine to check nobody was inside it. As he did not see anyone, he restarted the machine; it shuddered, came to a stop and triggered the alarm again.
Mr. Hussain’s body was subsequently found in a crouched position inside the machine, he had died immediately.

The investigation further revealed that although a key safety device was available, Nestle had not advised staff what it was or how to use it.
Nestles’ safety failings were exacerbated by the fact they had previously received information and advice about how to improve the guarding on the machine but it had never been applied to Mr. Hussain’s machine.
Bradford Court fined Nestle UK £180K and ordered them to pay almost £42K in costs.

A HSE spokesperson commented that this terrible tragedy could have been easily avoided; Nestle failed in their responsibility to make sure that robust systems were implemented to control entry into the machine and to prevent it from being started whilst somebody was inside.

A family has been devastated and without a provider due to the company’s inexcusable negligence. It is imperative that other companies take action to avoid similar accidents and fatalities in the future.

Firms need to be aware that the HSE will not stop their policy of taking appropriate action against safety failings and those which fail to achieve the required standards

New date for health and safety cost recovery scheme

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has today announced that its cost recovery scheme, Fee for Intervention, is going ahead but will now not start in April 2012.

The scheme sets out to recover costs from those who break health and safety laws for the time and effort HSE spends on helping to put matters right - investigating and taking enforcement action.
Law-abiding businesses will be free from costs and will not pay a penny.
Gordon MacDonald, HSE's programme director, said:
"The Government has agreed that it is right that those who break the law should pay their fair share of the costs to put things right - and not the public purse.
"The Government intends to proceed with the FFI scheme as recommended to ministers by HSE's Board in December in response to the formal consultation that took place last Summer.
"Discussions are still taking place on the technical details of the scheme, which we expect to conclude soon.
"Therefore, FFI will not be introduced in April but at the next available opportunity, which is likely to be October 2012."
HSE is taking advantage of the extra time to work further with businesses to improve their understanding of the scheme and how it will affect them.
Detailed guidance for employers and organisations will be available on HSE's website ahead of implementation.
A practice run of the new processes and procedures underpinning the scheme is already underway in HSE and will continue until the scheme is implemented.

Young people, risk and an exciting education

Rarely a day goes by when we don't read or hear about a serious health and safety issue in the news.

It can be easy to lose sight amidst all this that here in Great Britain we have one of the best health and safety records in the world, and many other countries envy our achievements.

We can only maintain this record in the future if we ensure that the next generation learns about the risks they are going to encounter in life, and how to deal with them.

One great example of how to do this is set by Llew Davies, the Pride of Britain winner and teacher at Ysgol Cae Top in Bangor. Here's a man who teaches his primary school class about velocity by racing office chairs in the gym. Who has structured lessons around building volcanoes and mock Formula One cars. And, crucially, who gets the fact that health and safety does not erect barriers to providing an exciting education.

I recently joined Llew and his Year 5 class for a history lesson with a difference: exploring the Roman invasion by building - and firing - siege weapons.

The children might not have realised it but this was actually more than a history lesson - it was a textbook example of how to not to over apply health and safety to a low risk situation. No goggles, hard hats or high viz necessary, no sprawling risk assessments. Just wooden sticks, sticky tape, elastic bands and lots of enthusiasm, from the teacher as well as the class. The kids were encouraged to give it some welly in firing their catapults, and the only safety briefing I heard was when Llew asked his pupils if they thought standing in front of a catapult about to be fired was the best idea. I suspect that most of the children fortunate enough to attend Ysgol Cae Top will remember Mr Davies for life. Let's hope they hold onto the hidden health and safety lesson too.

It baffles me why some people tangle themselves in pointless red tape, when others show that health and safety is actually pretty simple and straightforward.

You can't teach young people about risk from a text book - they need some practical experience. That's why cosseting children and seeking to remove all risk from their experiences ultimately leaves them ill equipped for adult and working life. When they join the world of work, young people need to be prepared to recognise and manage risk. Our system of regulation relies upon it.

On 30 March the National Trust launched a report calling for children to re-connect with the outdoors saying "we need to make it easy and safe for our children to get outdoors" - I'm right with them on that one and Llew Davies is already showing how it can be done!

What work activities are covered by health and safety law?

All work activities are covered by health and safety laws. The Health and Safety Executive enforces a range of legislation, including;

• The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Regulations made under this act apply to all work situations, for example the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH) and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations.
• Other laws that cover particular hazards, such as parts of the Food and Environmental Protection Act and the Control of Pesticides Regulations, both of which are about pesticides.
• Laws that cover health and safety in specific industries such as mining, nuclear, railway, explosives and offshore oil and gas;
• Older laws that predate the Health and safety at Work Act, and cover a range of industries, but not all workplaces, such as the Factories Act and regulations made under it. Most of these laws are gradually being modernised.

Although all working situations are covered by health and safety regulations, not all workplaces are inspected by HSE. Enforcement of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act and related legislation is shared with Local Authorities who cover certain types of work activities.
For information on the basics regarding what your employer must do to make their business comply with health and safety law, please see 'Health and safety made simple'.
Both employers and workers should  read Health and safety law: what you need to know. This contains the same information that is displayed on Health and Safety law posters.
As a worker, if you have specific queries or concerns relating to health and safety in your workplace, talk to your employer, manager/supervisor or a health and safety representative.
If you think your employer is exposing you to risks or is not carrying out their legal duties  regards to health and safety and this has been pointed this out to them and no satisfactory response has been received, you can make a complaint to HSE.

Carlisle boss fined after ignoring fire warnings

The owner of a pallet manufacturing firm has appeared in court after he allowed fires to be repeatedly lit at his premises next to gas storage sites in Carlisle.

Brampton Pallets in Carlisle

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted George Ward after he ignored warnings about lighting fires at Brampton Pallets, which borders two Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) storage sites.

Carlisle Magistrates' Court heard HSE first issued Mr Ward with a Prohibition Notice in December 2007, preventing wood being burnt in an open metal drum at the site on Willowholme Industrial Estate.

Mr Ward signed a letter in April 2009 which prescribed how fires could be safely lit and controlled at Brampton Pallets, after HSE received another complaint about fires at the site.

But a further complaint was made in 2011 and, when two HSE inspectors visited the site on 10 March, they witnessed another unsuitably controlled fire.

George Ward, of Rockcliffe in Carlisle, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by failing to ensure people were not exposed to risks to their safety. He was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £3,687 in prosecution costs on 28 March 2012.

Speaking after the hearing, Steven Boyd, the investigating inspector at HSE, said:

"Mr Ward was given several chances to comply with the law but after repeatedly ignoring our advice, a prosecution was inevitable.

"By allowing unsuitably controlled fires to be burnt at Brampton Pallets, he risked a spark from the fires causing a serious fire or explosion at the gas storage sites next to his business.

"If this had happened then it had to the potential to cause multiple deaths or serious injuries."

Unregistered gas fitter's work put people at risk

A Wrexham-based gas fitter has been sentenced after installing and illegally servicing equipment which could have resulted in harm to the tenants and landlord of a Wrexham property.

Wrexham Magistrates' Court today sentenced Mr Neil Lloyd to a 12-month community order that includes 150 hours of unpaid work, in a prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). He was also ordered to pay costs of £500.

The court heard Mr Lloyd installed a boiler and flue at a home in Holly Grove, Wrexham, in January 2006, and serviced the boiler until September 2010. Problems with the installation came to light in October 2010 when part of the heating system broke down and the house owner called a different gas engineer to repair it.

The new engineer, who, unlike Mr Lloyd, did work for a Gas Safe registered company, immediately spotted that the flue was not sealed properly so if there had been a problem with the boiler then poisonous carbon monoxide gas could have come back into the house. Repairs were carried out immediately and the homeowner reported the problems to the Gas Safe Register and HSE.

An HSE investigation found that Mr Lloyd had not been registered during the time of servicing the equipment, and the flue that he had installed was not in a proper condition for the boiler to be operated safely.

Neil Lloyd, of Chestnut Close, Gresford, Wrexham, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 3(3), 3(7) and 27(1) of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998. In relation to breach of Regulations 3(3) and 3(7) he was given a 12-month community order and there was no penalty for the breach of Regulation 27(1). He was also ordered to pay £500 in costs.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Debbie John said:

"Every year around 20 people die and many others suffer ill health as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning caused by gas appliances and flues which have not been properly installed or maintained.

"Mr Lloyd was fully aware of the legal requirement for gas fitting work to only be carried out by a registered Gas Safe engineer, yet he inspected the gas installation and declared it was satisfactory.

"This case should serve as a lesson to anyone tempted to undertake gas work when not registered. Householders should be extra vigilant in checking that any gas work is carried out only by Gas Safe registered engineers."

Paul Johnston, chief executive of Gas Safe Register, said:

"Gas work in your home should only be carried out by suitably qualified Gas Safe registered engineer. Every Gas Safe engineer carries an ID card which not only confirms they are registered but also details which kinds of appliances they can work on.

"Always ask to see the card and remember you can always call us on 0800 408 5500 to check if an engineer is registered."

Risk assessment and key risk areas

What you must do

You must manage the health and safety risks in your workplace. To do this you need to think about what, in your business, might cause harm to people and decide whether you are doing enough to prevent that harm. This is known as a risk assessment. Once you have identified the risks, you need to decide how to control them and put the appropriate measures in place.
   
What you should know

A risk assessment is an important step in protecting your workers and your business, as well as complying with the law. It helps you focus on the risks that really matter in your workplace - the ones with the potential to cause real harm. In many instances, straightforward measures can readily control risks, for example ensuring spillages are cleaned up promptly so people do not slip, or cupboard drawers are kept closed to ensure people do not trip. For most, that means simple, cheap and effective measures to ensure your most valuable asset - your workforce - is protected.

The law does not expect you to eliminate all risk, but you are required to protect people as far as 'reasonably practicable'. More information on risk assessment is available at the HSE's Health and Safety made Simple site

Health screening company failed its duty to workers

 

A Cornish company has been prosecuted after using unqualified staff to screen the health of workers from dozens of other organisations.

Audio Medical Services Ltd (AMS) carried out tests inadequately for 59 companies over a period of at least four years across the UK. The company failed to provide employers with information to prevent workers' health deteriorating and did not refer employees to occupational health professionals when required.

The case related to Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) caused by regular use of hand-held power tools or holding materials processed by machinery. Symptoms include pain, numbness and tingling in the fingers and a reduced sense of touch which can be disabling. It is also characterised by finger blanching, known as 'vibration white finger'. The condition can be prevented, but once developed, cannot be cured.

The court heard that staff employed by AMS to carry out the tests, including Nick Nickson, did not have occupational health training and had not received the relevant training to perform screening for Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome.

The issue came to light following a company identifying anomalies with the screening performed by AMS. HSE then contacted companies who employed the services of AMS and visited a range of firms in the ship-building, quarrying, civil engineering and rail industries.
The investigation identified that numerous employees at these companies had not been suitably referred to an occupational health provider and therefore continued to be exposed to vibration at work. This put individuals at risk of further deterioration and permanent damage.
HSE Inspector, Georgina Speake, said:

"The failures of AMS were totally unacceptable.
"Companies using AMS thought they were doing the right thing by providing screening for their employees.  AMS's negligent behaviour meant a significant number of workers have been put at risk of worsening their conditions by continuing with their normal work practices when they should have stopped.

"Around two million people are at risk of this painful and debilitating condition in the UK and although preventable, once the damage is done it is permanent, there simply is no treatment. Proper health surveillance is vital to detect and respond to early signs of damage."

Attacks of HAVS may cause pain, numbness and tingling as well as reduced manual dexterity and the effect may spread from the tips of the fingers up the digit, causing stiffness in the hand and arm. Sufferers may struggle with tasks requiring fine manipulation, including simple tasks like dressing, which can affect their family and social lives. In severe cases, blood circulation may be permanently impaired.

Audio Medical Services Ltd of Liskeard, Cornwall pleaded guilty to an offence under Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Nick Nickson, the Managing Director of AMS also pleaded guilty to the same offence.

AMS Ltd were fined £3,200 and ordered to pay costs of £5,000 by Bodmin Magistrates Court in a case brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Managing Director, Nick Nickson, was also fined £700.