Director’s poorly designed lifting platform led to 4.5m fall    

The HSE has prosecuted a manufacturing firm and one of its directors after two agency workers in their teens fell 4.5 metres from a poorly designed lifting platform.

Eighteen-year-old Leon Payne broke his back and another worker, also 18, broke both of his heels in the incident, which happened in April 2009 at Storetec’s depot in Tibshelf, Derbyshire.

The workers fell while loading scrapped supermarket trolleys into a skip from a makeshift platform fitted to a forklift truck.

As the platform was bringing the two workers back to the ground, it became caught and was dragged off the truck's forks. Both the workers and the platform fell to the ground.

Derby Crown Court heard that in designing the platform, Storetec director, Brian Crossan, had not followed proper standards, which meant the fork extensions did not fit properly into the platform and the plate did not have any chains securing it to the truck.

“The company should have considered if it was necessary to use a platform like this in the first place,” said HSE inspector Fiona Coffey, “and if it was, used something that was legal and safe - this arrangement clearly was not.”

Storetec — which makes supermarket trolley protection systems, smoking and bike shelters, and shelving systems — admitted failing to ensure agency workers’ safety, in breach of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

Crossan pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5(1) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations, which covers equipment used for lifting people.

At Derby Crown Court last week (15 June), the judge fined Storetec £22,000 with £12,134 in costs, and Crossan £3500 plus costs of £7866.

Proposed changes to HSE approval of training providers and qualifications for first aid following the Löfstedt Review

As part of the Government’s plans to reform Britain’s health and safety system, the Department for Work and Pensions’ (DWP) Minister for Employment, the Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP, commissioned an independent review of health and safety legislation.
The review, conducted by Professor Ragnar Löfstedt, Reclaiming health and safety for all: An independent review of health and safety regulation was published on 28 November 2011.
Professor Löfstedt's report sets out a number of risk and evidence-based recommendations that will:

• reduce regulatory requirements on business where they do not lead to improved health and safety outcomes, and
• remove pressures on business to go beyond what the regulations require, enabling them to reclaim ownership of the management of health and safety.

On first aid, the Löfstedt Review stated:

Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981

A number of organisations have identified the requirement under the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981 to have a qualified first-aid person appointed in the workplace as being an unnecessary requirement for low-risk workplaces.
In fact the regulations do not insist upon a particular number of first-aid personnel and there is a requirement for employers to make provision for first-aid under the Framework Directive 89/391. However, the regulations do currently stipulate that the training and qualifications for the appointed first-aid person must be approved by HSE and this appears to both go beyond the requirements of the Directive and have little justification. So long as they meet a certain standard, allowing businesses to choose training providers should allow them greater flexibility to choose what is right for their workplace, and possibly reduce costs.
This should be accompanied by revised guidance clarifying what is suitable for different environments to help businesses adopt measures that are suitable for their workplace, and that explains clearly what the regulations actually require. I therefore recommend that HSE amends the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981 to remove the requirement for HSE to approve the training and qualifications of appointed first-aid personnel.”
The Government accepted the recommendations within the report and HSE is working towards implementing them, including those for first aid at work.
More specifically, the policy objectives for HSE are as follows:

• Removal of HSE approval of First Aid Training providers, to reduce the burden on business;
• To ensure that businesses can identify first aid courses that are appropriate for their workplaces and select suitable training providers.

The review also recommended, generally, reducing the burden on the self employed.

What will happen next?

To implement the recommendation will require a change in legislation to make amendments to the Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981. This work is now under way.

When will this happen?

Amendments to regulations follow a Common Commencement Date (October or April of each year) in which they come into force. HSE is currently considering the most appropriate date to initiate the change and will provide more information as soon as possible.

Will I be consulted?

The decision to remove HSE approval has been accepted by Government and HSE must therefore make the changes necessary to implement the recommendation. HSE has however, made a ‘pop-up’ questionnaire available on its first aid web pages for those who are impacted by the changes. It will be used to inform an impact assessment as part of the legislative process. The questionnaire will run until June 2012.
HSE has also met with training providers, industry bodies and trades union.

What does the recommendation mean?

HSE will no longer approve training providers and qualifications although it will continue to manage the standard for first aid by which all courses should be set.
For providers, this will mean that they no longer have to seek HSE approval, removing the costs associated with gaining this approval.
For employers, the recommendation will allow them greater flexibility in choosing first aid training, suitable for their workplaces and the risks there-in.
For those who are self employed, there will no longer be the statutory requirement to provide equipment to render first aid to themselves if injured at work.
What will happen once the regulations have been amended?

Safe operation of refuse and recycling collection vehicles in a pedestrian environment

The main considerations for preventing transport-related accidents in pedestrian environments include:

• Carrying out a route risk assessment to highlights major hazards on the route(s) and indicate how they may be avoided or the risks minimised, for example, arranging collections to avoid certain times of the day in sensitive areas (eg. start, finish and lunch times for schools);
• Identify those areas where it is reasonably practicable to carry out single-sided street collection in order to minimise the risks of refuse collectors crossing the road;
• Safe reversing and use of reversing assistants. The risks associated with reversing vehicles can be reduced by:
  • eliminating or reducing reversing manoeuvres wherever possible;
  • devising and following safe systems of work;
  • using reversing aids such as mirrors, CCTV, detectors and alarms;
  • using trained reversing assistants only when the risks cannot be adequately controlled by the above; and
  • monitoring work activities from time to time to ensure that the agreed system of work is being implemented

Transport associated with the sorting, processing and disposal of waste

Waste management and recycling activities such as waste transfer stations, skip hire, civic amenity sites, MRFs, scrap yards, landfill sites etc  involve the use of a wide range of vehicles or mobile plant (e.g. lorries of various sizes, fork lift trucks, 360^o excavators, front loading shovels, mobile cranes  etc.). The risks to workers and visiting members of the public are similar to those posed by collection activities, however, as the majority of these sites are at fixed locations implementation of a good site layout and suitable management systems can significantly reduce the risks posed by vehicle movements. The key to reducing transport accidents in these environments is to ensure there is adequate segregation between pedestrians and moving transport/plant.

Bristol machining company fined after employee suffers serious injuries

A Brislington-based machining company has been prosecuted for failing to adequately guard dangerous parts of machinery resulting in a worker suffering serious head and chest injuries.

Bristol Magistrates Court heard today (11 June) that 34 year old Ian Spicer, from Hartcliffe in Bristol, was operating a Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) lathe machine at Mil Tu Fit Engineering Ltd when the incident happened on 30 August 2011.

During an investigation, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) discovered that the company had two CNC lathes on site, one intended for machining short parts only and another with a bar feed attachment and guard designed for machining longer parts. Because the machine for longer parts was already in use, Mr Spicer was instructed to use the lathe without the bar feed attachment to machine long metal bars at roughly 2.5 metres in length.

The court was told that, Mr Spicer was advised to place a barrier of empty drums at the end of the machine in order to fence off the rotating bar from passers-by - a method that Mil Tu Fit Engineering had used in the past. However, as the machine was operating, the bar became unstable and began to bend under its own weight. As Mr Spicer turned to see what was happening, he was struck by the bar which threw him to the ground and knocked him unconscious.

Mr Spicer sustained a compressed skull fracture, which had partly shattered and concaved his skull, leaving fragments resting on his brain. He also suffered wide gashes to his chest, a dislodged breast plate, broken wrist, and several other smaller wounds on his body.

Speaking after the prosecution, HSE inspector Mehtaab Hamid said:

"Although the barriers Mr Spicer's employers advised to set up might have prevented other employees from accessing the bar from the side and rear of the machine, they offered no protection for the machine's operator, and did not support the bar which was spinning at extremely high speeds.

"Mr. Spicer's injuries were extremely serious. He has returned to work, but not in his previous role as machine operator and only on a part time basis. Some nine months after the incident, Mr Spicer is still suffering from severe headaches, chest, back and joint pains, as well as dizziness and flashbacks. At this point, his work future is uncertain.

"Had the company used the appropriate equipment which was available on site, this incident could have been avoided and Mr Spicer would not have suffered these terrible injuries."

Mil Tu Fit Engineering Ltd, of 246 Broomhill Road, Brislington, Bristol, BS4 5RG, was found guilty of breaching Regulation 11(1)(a) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The company was fined a total of £10,000 and ordered to pay £3,632 in costs.

Berkshire contractor prosecuted for guard rail failure

A building firm has been prosecuted for safety failings after a decorator was seriously injured when he fell through a substandard guard rail at a housing development in Reading.

The guard rail through which Mr Williams fell

Phillip Williams, 63, from Reading, fractured his hip, broke five ribs, chipped a bone in his spine and was left with internal bleeding and clotting around his lungs as a result of the fall during the construction of a house at Wintringham Way on 30 August last year.

Reading Magistrates' Court heard (8 June) that he had been sub-contracted to work at the property by the main contractor W Pocock and Sons Limited, a local family-run business.

Mr Williams was walking towards a first floor light-well to talk to workers on the ground floor. As he leant in against a wooden guard rail it gave way and he fell approximately 2.6 metres to the ground floor below.

He was hospitalised for three weeks as a result of his injuries, and needed three months of recuperation before gradually returning to work.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigated and found the guard rail in the light well had been removed and replaced prior to the incident in order to pass materials from the ground floor to the first. This seemingly caused the fixings to deteriorate, therefore making the guard rail inadequate to prevent a person from falling - a direct failing on behalf of the contractor.

W Pocock and Sons, of New Lane Hill, Tilehurst, pleaded guilty to a single breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 in relation to the incident. The company was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay £2,706 in costs.

After the hearing, HSE inspector James Powell, said:

"Mr Williams sustained serious injuries as a result of his fall, which could easily have been avoided had the guard rail been adequately secured to ensure that it could not be displaced.

"It simply wasn't up to the job, possibly as a result of the rail being removed and replaced on more than one occasion, and the subsequent deterioration this caused to the quality of the fitting.

"A thorough inspection of the guard rail after re-installation would have identified any weakness and could have saved Mr Williams a great deal of trauma. It underlines the need to routinely inspect fall protection equipment used for work at height."

Building firm sentenced after worker breaks back in fall

A building firm has been sentenced after a bricklayer broke his back when he fell through exposed floor joists at a site in Widnes.

Construction site where bricklayer fell through joists and broke his back

The 40-year-old man from Southport, who has asked not to be named, was working on a project to refurbish a corner shop and construct four one-bedroom houses when he fell three metres from the first to the ground floor.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted the principal contractor for the project, Frank Rogers (Building Contractor) Ltd, following an investigation into the incident at Albert Road in Widnes on 3 May 2011.

Warrington Magistrates’ Court heard that there was no internal staircase in the building, so workers had to climb up a ladder or through a window opening from scaffolding to access the first floor.

The bricklayer tripped as he stepped from the window onto a trestle on the floor, and fell between the exposed joists. He suffered a brief loss of consciousness and a broken back.

Frank Rogers (Building Contractors) Ltd pleaded guilty to a breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 by failing to make sure that sufficient measures were in place to prevent workers being injured in a fall.

The company, of Lark Hill Lane in Liverpool, was fined £13,500 and ordered to pay £7,509 in prosecution costs on 13 June 2012.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Dr Tom Baldwin said:

"Luckily the bricklayer has made a good recovery, but a fall of that distance could have resulted in him suffering permanent injuries or even being killed.

"Frank Rogers (Building Contractors) Ltd didn’t consider the risks of workers being injured in a fall ahead of the work starting and, as a result, no measures were put in place to prevent falls.

"If the company had taken simple safety measures, such as covering the joists with wooden boards, then lives would not have been put at risk."

Worker's safety pleas ignored by South West London Firm

A former Croydon construction company has been prosecuted after a worker fell eight metres from a scaffold tower that he hadn’t wanted to build for safety reasons.

Green Acre Homes (South East) Ltd, which ceased to operate a year ago, failed to listen to the concerns raised by handyman John Morgan, who had been instructed to build a tower scaffold on a building site in Peckham.

Mr Morgan, 44, of Roehampton, was finishing building the top of the tower on 25 November 2009 when a strong gust of wind sent it crashing to the ground. He plummeted some eight metres, fracturing his ribs and breastbone, compressing his vertebrae and wounding his head.

Westminster Magistrates’ Court was told (13 June) that an investigation into the incident by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) identified that Mr Morgan and a colleague were initially asked to erect the tower scaffold in an area that didn’t provide a stable base.

Despite protesting to site management they were told to continue. They improvised as best they could until a representative from Wandle Housing Association, the client company, saw it and ordered the tower to be taken down as it was unsafe to use

The court heard Mr Morgan was then told to build the tower in a second location. Again there was a space problem and again he and his co-worker raised concerns with managers about safety.

Once more Green Acre Homes failed to take any action and the workers went about building the scaffold tower. As it was nearing completion, Mr Morgan was at the top of the tower when high winds struck, sending the tower toppling to the ground.

Mr Morgan was unable to work for three months. He now suffers persistent ringing in his ears and permanent scarring.

Magistrates were told that HSE progressed the case on behalf of Mr Morgan despite the firm going into liquidation in August 2011 and because the prosecution sends vital messages to all industries about working safely at heights.

Green Acre Homes (South East) Ltd did not appear in court and were found guilty in their absence. Magistrates found the firm guilty of breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. It was fined a £15,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,969.

After the hearing, HSE Inspector Ian Seabrook said:

"Mr Morgan was lucky to have survived this fall. He and his colleague had tried several times to convince managers that a tower scaffold could not be safety erected where they had been told to put it. In addition neither of them was trained to construct scaffold towers.

"Even after the firm’s client company had ordered the first one to be dismantled, they ignored the very valid concerns repeated by the two handymen, even when their fears were echoed by other workers on site.

"Mr Morgan is paying a high price for the significant safety failings of Green Acre Homes. The case highlights how important it is that tower scaffolds are erected by trained and competent workers. It also illustrates the need for site managers to listen to the concerns of their workforce and act on them."

Sussex company director fined after failing to control asbestos

An estate management director, from Brighton, has been fined after failing to manage the spread of asbestos during the demolition of a building.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Brian Marshall, 44, managing director of Supply on Demand Ltd, for breaching asbestos safety regulations.

Brighton Magistrates' Court heard yesterday (11 June) that between the 7 and 20 May 2011, Mr Marshall instructed a worker to dismantle a building at Bluebell Business Estate, Uckfield, with an excavator. No asbestos survey was carried out before work started and asbestos containing materials (ACMs) were disturbed during the demolition.

A HSE investigation found that Mr Marshall was told about his duty to manage asbestos by Lewes District council in September 2008. He even obtained a quote in February 2011 for an asbestos refurbishment survey on another project nearby.

After the hearing, HSE's Inspector Russell Beckett said:

"Asbestos can be difficult to identify unless you are trained and competent to do so. Before any demolition or dismantling work starts, an assessment must be carried out to establish whether asbestos is present.  A survey will tell you whether asbestos is present and what to do about it.

"Mr Marshall was well aware of the need to carry out an asbestos survey but decided to carry on without one. This is a shocking case of a director who did know better simply ignoring the law.

"Up to 4,000 people a year die from asbestos related diseases. HSE will not hesitate to prosecute those like Mr Marshall who flout the law."

Brian Marshall, of Rock Grove, Brighton, Sussex, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(3) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. He was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay costs of £10,449.

Workers were needlessly exposed to deadly asbestos dust

Workmen carrying out a refurbishment at a Devon pub were exposed to deadly asbestos dust and then asked by their site manager to remove it without adequate protection.

The incident happened at the Three Crowns pub in Chagford, Dartmoor in January 2010, when the refurbishment was being carried out for St Austell Breweries by Cowley's Building and Maintenance Ltd and its director, Christopher Reed.

Exeter Magistrates fined St Austell Breweries £5,000 and ordered them to pay £6,295 in costs in a prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Cowley's Building and Maintenance Ltd were fined £12,500 with £6,295 costs and Christopher Reed was fined £2,500 with costs of £2,000.

The court heard that the work took place without a suitable asbestos survey report which should have been provided by St Austell Breweries.

As the workmen, all employees of Cowley's, began removal of an internal wall they uncovered asbestos insulation boards inside. Reed, who was in charge of the site, arranged for a sample of the board to be tested by asbestos specialists but also asked the workers to pick-up the debris from the boards.

During the demolition of the wall and the clean-up, there was further disturbance and exposure of asbestos on the site.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector, Barry Trudgian, said: "Multiple failures on site led to significant risks of exposure to asbestos dust to the four workmen.

"Asbestos dust can cause fatal lung diseases and the dangers are well known in the industry. On average, 20 tradesmen die every week from asbestos related diseases.

"As the owners of the site, St Austell Brewery should have provided a full and thorough assessment of the possible presence of asbestos at the Three Crowns.

"Once the asbestos boards were found, the site manager should have stopped the demolition work and reduced the risk of exposure by providing the workmen with a safe system of remedial measures.

"All those involved in refurbishment or demolitions must be fully aware of their responsibilities for workers' safety when carrying out their work. This should include following a safe decontamination process, which, depending on severity, could include use of a mask, safe disposal of contaminated clothing and taking a shower."

St Austell Brewery Company Ltd of Trevarthian Road, St Austell pleaded guilty to a breach of Regulation 4(3) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined £5,000.

Cowley's Building and Maintenance Ltd of Queen Street, Colyton pleaded guilty to a breach of Regulation 6(1)(a) of the same regulations and was fined £5,000. The company also pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1)(a) and was fined £7,500.

Christopher Reed, of Higher Holcombe Road, Teignmouth, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 and was fined £2,500

Scaffold checklist

This guide is intended to clarify when scaffold design is required and what level of training and competence those erecting, dismantling, altering, inspecting and supervising scaffolding operations are expected to have obtained.

Design and inspection issues

• Unless a scaffold is a basic configuration described in recognised guidance e.g. NASC Technical Guidance TG20 for tube and fitting scaffolds or manufacturers' guidance for system scaffolds, the scaffold should be designed by calculation, by a competent person, to ensure it will have adequate strength and stability.
• All scaffolding should be erected, dismantled and altered in accordance with either NASC guidance document SG4 for tube and fitting scaffolds or the manufacturers' erection guide for system scaffolds.
• For scaffolds that fall outside the scope of 'Basic Scaffolds' as described in bullet point 1, the design information should describe the sequence and methods to be adopted when erecting, dismantling and altering the scaffold, if this is not covered by published guidance as detailed in bullet point 2.
• Any proposed modifications or alterations outside a generally recognised standard configuration should be designed by a competent person.
• Handover certificates should refer to relevant drawings, permitted working platform loadings and any specific restrictions on use.
• All scaffolding inspection should be carried out by a competent person whose combination of knowledge, training and experience is appropriate for the type and complexity of the scaffold he is inspecting. Competence may have been assessed under The Construction Industry Scaffolders Registration Scheme (CISRS) or an individual may be suitably experienced in scaffolding work and have received additional training under a recognised manufacturer/supplier scheme for the specific configuration he is inspecting.
• A non-scaffolder who has attended a suitable scaffold inspection course and has the necessary background experience would be considered competent to inspect a basic scaffold (ie a site manager).
• The scaffold inspection report should note any defects and corrective actions taken, even when those actions are taken promptly as this assists with the identification of any recurring problems.
• To prevent use by unauthorised persons of incomplete scaffolds, relevant warning signs identifying the areas where access is not permitted should be displayed at the access points to these areas. In addition, access to the incomplete areas should be prevented by suitable physical means.

Competence and supervision issues

• All employees should be competent (or in the case of trainees, supervised by a competent person) for the type of scaffolding work they are undertaking and should have received appropriate training relevant to the type and form of scaffolding they are working on.
• Employers must provide appropriate levels of supervision taking into account the complexity of the work and the levels of training and competence of the scaffolders involved.
• As a minimum requirement, every scaffold gang should contain an appropriately qualified scaffolder for the type and complexity of the scaffold to be erected, altered or dismantled. This may be an individual who has received training under an industry recognised training scheme, e.g. CISRS, and has been awarded the scaffolder card or someone who has received training under a recognised manufacturer/supplier scheme, to the limit of the configuration(s) involved.
• Trainee scaffolders should always work under the direct supervision of a qualified scaffolder (i.e. a working foreman). Scaffolders are classed as 'trainees' until they have completed the approved training and assessment required to be deemed qualified.
• Erection, alteration and dismantling of complex designed scaffolding (e.g. suspended scaffolds, shoring, temporary roofs etc) should be done under the direct supervision of a competent person. This may be a qualified Advanced scaffolder, a design engineer providing they possess the necessary industry experience or alternatively an individual who has received training under a recognised manufacturer/supplier scheme to the limit of the configuration(s) involved.

Scaffold structures that need to be designed

1. Dead Shores
2. Flying shores
3. Raking shores
4. Cantilevered scaffolds
5. Truss-out Scaffolds
6. Access Birdcages
7. Façade retention
8. Access scaffolds with more than the 2 working lifts allowed with TG20 'Basic Scaffolds'
9. Buttressed free-standing scaffolds
10. Temporary roofs and temporary buildings
11. Support scaffolds
12. Loading Bays founded on the ground
13. Mobile and static towers outside base/height limitations
14. Free standing scaffolds outside base/height Limitations
15. Temporary ramps and elevated roadways
16. Staircases and fire escapes
17. Spectator Terraces and Seating Stands
18. Bridge scaffolds
19. Towers requiring guys or ground anchors
20. Offshore scaffolds outside Offshore Contractors Association (OCA) handbook
21. Pedestrian footbridges or walkways
22. Slung and Suspended scaffolds
23. Protection fans, Nets and Pavement Frames
24. Marine scaffolds
25. Boiler scaffolds
26. Power line crossings
27. Lifting gantries and towers
28. Steeple scaffolds
29. System scaffolds outside users guide parameters
30. Sign board supports
31. Sealing end structures
32. Temporary Storage on Site
33. Masts, Lighting Towers and Transmission Towers
34. Advertising hoardings/banners
35. Any scaffold structure subject to:
    • Vibration
    • High Loading
    • Long term duration
    • High risk areas
    • Loading from passenger/goods hoists

Firms fined over university death

A carpenter died when a large slab of concrete fell on him during construction of a new accommodation block at Bath University.

Philip Hames, of Weston-super-Mare, was working for Creagh Concrete Products on the University’s Claverton Down Campus when he adjusted a metal prop without realising it was securing a concrete plank above him.

The concrete plank dropped onto Mr Hames, killing him instantly and narrowly missing a co-worker. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigated the 1 November 2007 incident and has now brought a prosecution against Creagh.

Creagh Concrete Products Ltd of Blackpark Road, Toomebridge, County Antrim was found guilty of a breach of Section 3 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £100,000 and costs of £140,000 at Bristol Crown Court.

The court was told the positions and type of props used in supporting the concrete plank were critical, however placement was largely left to the workers to decide. One end of the concrete plank rested on an asymmetric steel beam on a movement joint.

The court heard the designs produced by Creagh Concrete Products Ltd failed to communicate to workers the nature of the expansion joint. In adjusting the prop, Mr Hames inadvertently destabilised the asymmetric beam the plank was resting on.

The propping of a structure under construction is called the ‘temporary works’.

Established British Standard and industry guidance was available to assist construction companies to plan work.

After the case, HSE Inspector Ian Smart, said:

"Unfortunately there has been a rise in the number of fatalities caused by the collapse of structures under construction or refurbishment over the past few years.

"Mr Hames was an experienced carpenter but Creagh failed to recognise the scope of the work he was undertaking and failed to ensure he was made aware of how critical the placements of the props were and the fact they should not be adjusted.

"Therefore, Mr Hames would not have understood the outcome of his actions. It was foreseeable he and other workers on site would seek to move props and robust steps should have been taken to prevent this.

"Since this incident, the published standard for temporary works has been revised. It provides additional clarity on respect of the safeguards associated with the temporary support of structures. It is crucial that this guidance is followed by the construction industry.

Metal polishing firm fined after workers hurt

A West Midlands metal polishing firm has been fined after two workers were injured in separate incidents just five months apart involving inadequately guarded machinery.

The first occurred at Farrelly's Metal Polishers Ltd in Wednesbury on 1 March last year when employee Ubaid Rehman's left hand became trapped in an edge-polishing machine.

He was attempting to reach an adjuster knob behind a pinch roller drive shaft in order to reposition the machine belt when his glove became entangled.

The second incident, on 12 August, saw Lee Rogers' right hand drawn into a tube polisher. He was removing a finished tube that had become lodged in the polishing head area when his glove caught on an abrasive belt, dragging his hand between the belt and the tube.

Mr Rehman, 37, of Edgbaston, and Mr Rogers, 23, of Wednesbury, suffered severe injuries that required extensive skin grafts.

Mr Rehman has poor grip and numbness in his left hand and Mr Rogers is still being treated to restore tendons in his hand. Both are still off work.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that the machine Mr Rehman was working on was completely unguarded at the working position, and that inadvertent contact with moving parts was a clear and ever present danger.

The machine had no emergency stop that could be reached by the operator, so Mr Rehman's workmate had to run to a control panel on the other side of the machine to stop it.

Warley Magistrates Court heard today (8 June) that following the first incident and subsequent HSE intervention Farrelly's made improvements to the guarding of this and other machinery.

However, the guarding fitted to the infeed working position on the machine Mr Rogers was operating was not adequate for work on the outfeed side of the machine. It became necessary for Mr Rogers to walk round to the other side of the machine to dislodge heavy tubes that kept getting stuck.

Magistrates were told that the system of work, and the training and instruction that Mr Rogers received on the tube polisher, was inadequate to deal with the risks created by using heavier, larger diameter steel tubing that he was processing for the first time on the morning of the incident.

Farrelly's Metal Polishers Ltd, of Newman Park, Western Way, Wednesbury, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for its guarding failures. The company was fined £14,000 and ordered to pay £6,800 in costs.

After the hearing HSE inspector Carol Southerd said:

 "Had Farrelly's better assessed its processes and safe working procedures, the company could have taken more effective steps to restrict access to dangerous parts on the machines involved. The two serious incidents and resulting injuries could therefore have been avoided.

"Although the company made improvements after the first incident, it is disappointing that it took a second incident to instigate proper risk assessment and adequate control measures to resolve problems arising from blockages and material changes."

Forklift driver's lucky escape at Hemel warehouse

A forklift truck driver could have been seriously injured or even killed when the vehicle he was operating overturned at a warehouse in Hemel Hempstead, a court has been told.

The overturned forklift truck at a warehouse in Hemel Hempstead

The worker was using the truck to align a one and a half tonne storage container on top of a stack of containers when it overturned at the Cadogan Tate site on Eastman Way on 13 April 2011.

His employer, Cadogan Tate Head Office and Treasury Service Ltd, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after its investigation found the container was more than two and a half times the safe lifting capacity of the forklift.

Watford Magistrates' Court heard today (6 June 2012) that one of Cadogan Tate's employees had used the forklift truck to lift the storage container, which was filled with books and magazines, on top of a stack of three other containers the day before the incident.

As he lifted it, the rear wheel on the left hand side of the truck lifted off the ground and the container was left overhanging the top of the stack, more than seven metres in the air.

The following day, a supervisor was asked to assess if the forklift truck could be returned to a stable position and the overhanging container aligned. He strapped himself in and tried to move the container. The forklift overturned. He escaped without any injuries.

Cadogan Tate Head Office and Treasury Service Ltd admitted breaching the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 by failing to provide suitable work equipment.

The company, which is part of the global removals, storage and shipping group, Cadogan Tate, also pleaded guilty to a breach of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 after it failed to make sure the work was planned and carried out safety.

The firm, of Acton Lane in London, was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay £3,860 in prosecution costs.

Speaking after the hearing, the investigating inspector at HSE, Sandra Dias, said:

"The worker at the Cadogan Tate warehouse was lucky not to have been seriously injured or even to have lost his life as a result of the forklift truck overturning.

"The company specialises in storage and removals and so it regularly uses forklift trucks to move containers. It made a basic error by failing to assess the weight of the container before allowing it to be lifted.

"The container was much heavier than most of the others at the warehouse, and the contents should have been split before it was stacked.

"Sadly, overturned vehicles cause several deaths in British workplaces every year. Employers must do more to make sure lives aren't put at risk.

Multinational recycling firm prosecuted over worker's death

 

Recycling company SITA UK Ltd has been fined £200,000 after a 21-year-old employee died from head injuries at its paper baling site in Tipton.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted the firm after Mark Bate, of Tipton, West Midlands, was killed instantly when the arm of a JCB skid steer loader crushed his head on 12 June 2008.

Wolverhampton Crown Court heard that Mr Bate had been driving the vehicle at SITA’s premises on the Coneygre Industrial Estate for three months without being properly trained.

On the day of the incident, he had been working on his own to load scrap paper onto a conveyor. 

After finishing the job, he stopped the loader and raised the safety bar from across his lap to isolate the machine, before leaning out of the front of the vehicle. However, the machine failed to isolate, the loader’s arm dropped and crushed his head against the machine, killing him immediately.

HSE’s investigation found that Mr Bate had not been formally trained, assessed or supervised in the use of the vehicle and a self-employed maintenance engineer had also used it over several months with no training.

In addition, the court heard the loader had not been maintained in the eight months before the incident. It should have been serviced at least twice during this time.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector David Evans said:

"Mark Bate was a young man who should have had a long life ahead of him. Instead, he was killed in an entirely avoidable tragedy.

"Despite knowing his lack of experience, SITA left him unsupervised to operate the loader. Furthermore, the vehicle was dangerous because it had not been properly maintained.

"The company’s risk assessment should have identified these issues but did not cover the use of this machine.

"Transport at work is one of the biggest causes of deaths in the workplace, often through insufficient training or poorly maintained vehicles. There is no excuse for such basic failings, especially as free advice is available from HSE."

In a statement released via the HSE, Mark's mother, Catherine Jones, and his sisters Ann-Marie and Gemma Bate said:

"Nothing and no-one can bring Mark back but, four years on, we feel we are finally getting justice for what happened to him that day."

SITA UK Ltd, of Grenfell Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) and Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £200,000 and ordered to pay £77,402 costs. It was also ordered to reimburse Mark’s mother £4,450 in funeral expenses

CDM to be rewritten for 2014                                  

The HSE has announced it will be re-drafting the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations for reissue in 2014.

A representative from the regulator confirmed the plans at an event held by the Association for Project Safety in May.

Details will be presented to the HSE board in December. However, the Executive indicated that the new Regulations are likely to be based more closely on the requirements of the EU Temporary or Mobile Construction Sites Directive.

The Löfstedt report recommended that an ongoing review of CDM 2007 should consider a clearer expression of duties, a reduction in bureaucracy and suitable guidance for small projects.

A spokesperson for the HSE said: “While many aspects of the [CDM] package work very well, such as the technical standards required during construction work, other aspects continue to cause concern for the industry, including coordination of health and safety prior to construction work starting.

“HSE is looking at how these concerns can be addressed, so the CDM regulatory package is focused on maintaining and improving health and safety standards for construction workers across the industry.”

Labour vows to stamp out ‘phoenix firm’ abuse                                 

A legal loophole that allows firms to evade justice in the event of a person for whom they have responsibility being killed at work will be closed, if Labour returns to power.

The commitment to stop the practice of firms facing prosecution under health and safety law from going into administration and then resuming business under a similar trading name – known as phoenix firms – was made earlier this week by Shadow Business secretary Chuka Ummuna during a speech in Scarborough.

Addressing attendees at the conference of construction union UCATT, Mr Ummuna said: “Business has responsibilities, but government does too. It is wrong that this Government is prepared to stand by while rogue businesses exploit loopholes in the law to evade justice when their malpractice leads to deaths at work.”

Earlier this year, Labour MP and UCATT member Luciana Berger introduced a parliamentary Bill in an effort to stop such subterfuge. The Bill sought to give health and safety inspectors the power to apply for a court order to freeze the assets, or parts thereof, of a firm under investigation following a death, or serious injury at work. However, it did not gain enough support for it to become law.

Added Mr Ummuna: “When workers are injured or killed at work, employers must be held accountable. They should not be able to get out of an investigation by claiming bankruptcy. The Bill would have stopped this, but it didn’t pass.

“So, I give this commitment: the next Labour government will legislate to prevent this abuse. It puts the lives of workers at risk; it is irresponsible; it is wrong – we will stop it.”

Ms Berger’s campaign was prompted, in part, by the death of a member of her Liverpool Wavertree constituency in 2007. The firm prosecuted over the incident was in administration by the time the case reached the courts, and was fined just £4500. The judge, however, suggested a fine of £300,000 would have been considered if the firm had been solvent.

Following the pledge from Mr Ummuna, UCATT general secretary Steve Murphy said a change in the law is essential to protect workers and ensure safe working practices in construction.

“Bereaved families also deserve justice,” he added: “It is bad enough for them to lose a loved one, but the law to allow those responsible to escape justice is a grievous insult.”

Here's our top ten tips to organising your event:

1. If you're going for a massive event, you might need to speak to your local council.  Things like charging for entry to your event, employing people by paying them, selling food or alcohol or wanting to completely close roads, these are the types of things that might need a conversation. You can find the contact details of your local council at DirectGov - Connect to your council
2. If people are paying to come to your event, then you have responsibilities to your customers. See HSE's guidance on running events safely
3. There's lots of good advice out there and some particularly helpful web pages include:
1. Communities and Local Government - Your guide to organising a street party or fete
2. DirectGov - Find your local authority
  
4. Whether it's just you or a group of people who are planning an event , it's a good idea to have a chat or have a think yourself about how to make your event run smoothly, deciding on things which might be an issue on the day, like children running about near traffic. If you're a commercial organisation, thinking about risks is important, but if you're not, then often common sense is enough.
5. Early on, it's good to decide where you're going to hold the event and how many people are invited - this helps you think about issues, and whether you need extra permissions from the council.
6. Often these types of events are run or helped by volunteers, so there's some good advice on HSE's Volunteering pages.
7. For some real life examples that might be relevant to you, you might want to have a look at HSE's Myth of the Month, which looks at crazy stories about health and safety being blamed wrongly for things.  Feel free to show the jobsworths our website!
8. Stand up for common sense, and if someone says you can't do something for health and safety reasons, challenge them to find out exactly why.  If there's a genuine risk, see what you can do to minimise that and still go ahead - it can often be done.
9. You can get HSE's help with challenging jobsworths by sending details to the Mythbusters Challenge Panel.
10. There is no need to get tied up in red tape as events have been held before without worrying about things like compensation culture. We're encouraging everyone to be a champion for common sense and challenge jobsworths wherever they can to make sure everyone can come to the party.

Equipment supplier fined after County Durham worker's hand severed

A worker from County Durham had his hand severed while carrying out maintenance on glass cutting machinery a court heard.

The 34-year-old maintenance technician, who has asked not to be named, was investigating a fault on a new tilt table with a colleague at the UK’s largest glass manufacturer Solaglas.

Lisec (UK and Ireland) Ltd was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) following the incident at Solaglas (Architectural) Ltd, in Bishop Auckland on 12 September 2007.

The table was part of a glass cutting line manufactured and installed by Lisec (UK and Ireland) Ltd at the Solaglas plant just four months earlier in May 2007.

A jury at Teesside Crown Court heard the injured maintenance technician from Esh Winning, Durham was on his hands and knees while trying to ascertain the cause of the fault and had activated the emergency stop.

Suspended above his right wrist was a large laminated glass sheet measuring six metres by three metres and weighing around almost a ton. The worker had his right arm extended with a mirror in his hand so he could check the status of a sensor relating to the release of the glass onto the table.

But when a colleague moved past another sensor on the tilt table the glass sheet was released, falling onto the maintenance technician’s wrist and severing his hand.

Surgeons reattached his hand with partial success and he was off work for several months while recovering from his injuries.

An HSE investigation found that there were faults within the programme controlling the movement of the glass as it allowed the glass sheet to be released, even when an emergency stop had been activated and that this fault was exacerbated by the installation of the new tilt table and the failure to integrate it properly with the existing equipment.

Although the incident happened to a Solaglas employee at their premises, it occurred due to a fault on a new glass cutting line which had been installed by Lisec (UK and Ireland) Ltd. Lisec was prosecuted as they had not complied with the legal duties imposed on installers of machinery.

Lisec (UK and Ireland) Ltd, of Springfield Industrial Estate, Telford, Shropshire, was today (29 May) found guilty following a month-long trial to breaching Section 6(3) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £100,000 and ordered to pay costs of £150,000.

After the case, HSE Inspector Martin Baillie said:

"This horrific incident should never have happened. Once he had put the table into an emergency stop condition, it should not have been possible to release the glass.

"Installers of machinery need to ensure that new equipment is compatible with the existing equipment and that the complete line complies with the essential safety requirements. That includes ensuring machinery is unable to move suddenly when an emergency stop has been activated."

Falls from height in ports

Many of the activities carried out in ports could lead to a fall from height. These activities may be during routine operations or during one-off maintenance activities. In ports, the added hazard of working near water means a fall may lead to the risk of drowning.

Typical falls from height hazards in ports

         

• Access to and from vessels by accommodation ladders and gangways
• Container top working - lashing and unlashing containers, use of slewing jib cranes
• Access to and from places of work on board vessels (holds, hatches, decks etc)
• Falls from vehicles during loading/unloading and sheeting
• Falls from car transporters
• Maintenance work
• Unloading some types of cargo, such as pipework, timber packs etc can result in open edges from ships decks, passages and from the cargo itself
• Working adjacent to open edges of docks, wharves etc

How the risks can be reduced 

• Do a risk assessment for any work carried out at height. Select and use suitable work equipment.
• Avoid work at height where possible, for example working from the ground using a long-handled tool.
• If work at height cannot be avoided, you should use work equipment or other measures to prevent falls, eg guardrails, mobile elevating working platforms (MEWPs).
• If there is still a risk of falls, you should use work equipment that minimises the distance and consequences of a fall, eg nets, airbags, fall arrest systems.
• All work at height should be properly planned and organised.
• Workers involved in work at height should be competent.
• Equipment for work at height must be properly inspected and maintained.

When working over or near water

• Provide secure and adequate fencing where a risk assessment has found this to be needed.
• People should wear suitable personal protective equipment, eg lifejackets or buoyancy aids.
• Provide dock premises with adequate and suitable rescue and lifesaving equipment and means to escape from danger, eg handholds on the quayside at water level, ladders on quay walls and life-saving appliances.
• Take into account the risks to lone workers