An international smoothie and fruit juice company has been sentenced for safety failings after an engineer was killed by falling pipework during work to decommission a former factory in South Wales.
Gavin Bedford, 24, was helping to dismantle and demolish a section of industrial pipework at the Gerber Juice Company Ltd premises in Llantrisant on 16 June 2010 when the structure, weighing around 300kg, collapsed and struck him.
The electro-mechanical engineer from Porthcawl, a well-known surfing and British trial-biking champion, sustained critical head injuries and died three days later in hospital.
Gerber Juice, now trading as Refresco Gerber UK Ltd, was prosecuted after a joint investigation between the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and South Wales Police discovered the company had failed to adequately plan and resource the decommissioning work.
Newport Crown Court heard that Gerber had closed their Llantrisant factory in 2010 and moved production to Bridgwater in Somerset. Mr Bedford was one of a small number of employees who had been temporarily kept-on to assist teams of specialist contractors in stripping the factory of its plant, machinery and services.
During the decommissioning, the factory had become a construction site with Gerber electing to plan, manage and monitor the project themselves instead of appointing a competent Principal Contractor.
As a consequence, Gerber had overlooked various hazardous tasks such as the removal of overhead industrial pipes and their supporting structures. This work consequently fell to the in-house engineers because they had not contracted the specialists to do it.
The court was told that Mr Bedford’s work had not been adequately planned, risk assessed, communicated or monitored by management, and that the various safety systems that Gerber used to manage its specialist contractors had not been used to manage its own engineering staff on the same site.
The police and HSE investigation established that because no written plan was provided to the Gerber team explaining how the structure was to be taken apart, various bolts and structural elements were removed in an unsafe sequence. This is what led to the eventual collapse.
Mr Bedford could have been lying injured for up to 40 minutes before he was found trapped unconscious under the pipes.
The Court also heard that a production manager for the juice factory was in charge of the hazardous decommissioning project, despite never having done this work before or having received any formal training. Furthermore, a safety officer only visited once or twice a fortnight and was based in Somerset.
Refresco Gerber UK Ltd, registered at Hans Road in London but based at Express Park, Bridgwater, Somerset, was fined £80,000 and ordered to pay £75,000 costs after pleading guilty to a breach of Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work &c. Act 1974.
Speaking after sentencing, HSE inspector Liam Osborne, said:
“Gavin Bedford, a young hard-working and highly-regarded engineer, was killed because of Gerber’s basic corporate failure to plan, manage and monitor a construction project. “Any demolition or dismantling work must be set down in writing and strictly monitored – as the law requires. It is also basic common sense.
“If Gerber had given enough time at the beginning to think through what needed to be done, and how it should be done, then Gavin would still be here today.”
Nigel Bedford, Gavin’s father, commented:
“This type of work was obviously dangerous and Gerber should have looked after Gavin properly. There was no planning for the job and the area wasn’t cordoned off. The management involved in the work didn’t have a clue what was going on.”
Anna Bedford, Gavin’s mother, added:
“I am left heartbroken. Gavin was a perfect son. He was a perfect friend. It was as if Gavin was put on this Earth to do such wonderful things; to help anybody that needed him. He touched everyone he knew and he had thousands of friends. I am so proud to have been Gavin’s mother. The world is a poorer place without him.”
Construction firm fined after worker’s roof light fall
A Sunderland construction firm has been fined after a worker was seriously injured when he fell three metres through a fragile roof light landing on the floor below.
The 29-year-old, from Ryhope, who does not want to be named, was part of a team of workers employed by Brims Construction Ltd to carry out the refurbishment of Pearl Assurance House, New Bridge Street, Newcastle, when the incident happened on 2 September 2013.
As a result of the fall he fractured two vertebrae and suffered severe bruising, but is expected to make a full recovery.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Brims Construction Ltd for safety failings after investigating the incident.
Newcastle Magistrates’ Court heard the worker was on the second-floor roof of the building and frequently had to pass close to two fragile plastic roof lights. At one point he placed an item on one of the roof lights but it fractured, and he fell through, landing on the concrete floor below.
The HSE investigation found there were no barriers or any other safety measures in place to prevent a fall through the roof lights, despite the fact that a consultant working for the company had recommended they were required.
The only precaution was a paper notice attached to the roof lights warning they were fragile, but these had disappeared by the time the incident happened.
The court was told Brims Construction Ltd had failed to provide suitable and sufficient measures to prevent the fall. After the incident the company erected scaffolding fencing at each roof light without impeding any other work.
Brims Construction Ltd, of Austin Boulevard, Quay West Business Park, Sunderland, was fined £6,000 and ordered to pay £690 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 9(2)(a) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005.
Speaking after the case, HSE Inspector Martin Smith said:
“This incident could easily have been prevented if Brims Construction Ltd had ensured that the fragile roof lights were either covered or effectively fenced off – something they did very easily after the incident happened.
“Instead a worker suffered a serious fall that could have cost him his life and he was lucky to escape with what were still serious injuries.
“The significant dangers of death and serious injury associated with falls from height during construction work are well-known in the industry and working near fragile roof lights without appropriate safety measures in place is simply not acceptable.”
Community service for unregistered gas fitter
A Radstock man has been prosecuted for illegal gas work at properties in Shepton Mallet, Midsomer Norton and Paulton.
John Chalmers worked on boilers at three houses in the towns and village between April and October 2011 without being registered with Gas Safe, as the law requires.
He appeared at Bath Magistrates’ Court after the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigated his criminal activity.
Magistrates were told that Mr Chalmers wasn’t legally competent to undertake any gas work because he was unregistered and did not hold any current qualifications.
Furthermore, HSE established that the work he had done at all three properties did not confirm to current standards for gas appliances.
The court also heard that John Chalmers had already been convicted for earlier gas offences and that in 2008 he signed an undertaking not to carry out any gas work unless he had obtained the appropriate Gas Safe registration status.
John Duncan Chalmers, of Jubilee Road, Radstock, pleaded guilty to two separate breaches of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 for each of the three boiler connections.
He was sentenced to undertake 240 hours of unpaid community work, to be carried out over a 12 month period, and was also ordered to pay £10,000 in costs. In addition, the court told him to pay the owner of the property in Shepton Mallett some £713 in compensation.
After the hearing, HSE Inspector Mehtaab Hamid said:
“John Chalmers is a serial offender who has already been prosecuted for doing gas work without being registered or competent do so. He knows what the law requires, but he again chose to work outside it.
“The Gas Safe Register exists to protect the public from fitters like him who are prepared to work illegally and carry out potentially dangerous gas work that could put lives at risk.
“Anyone who undertakes gas work must be on the Gas Safe Register and be competent to carry out such work. Cases like this highlights the need for householders to ask for and check the credentials of anyone working at their property, especially where gas is involved.”
Russell Kramer, Chief Executive of Gas Safe Register, added:
“Every Gas Safe registered engineer has an ID card which shows who they are and the type of work they are qualified to carry out. Customers should ask to see this and check the engineer is qualified to do the job in hand.
Landlord in court over gas safety
A Blackburn landlord has been fined after she ignored repeated warnings about arranging an annual gas safety check at a property with five gas appliances.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council made numerous attempts to contact Samera Hussain between October 2012 and April 2013, but she failed to provide proof of a gas safety record for a property on Cumberland Street.
Blackburn Magistrates’ Court heard that a tenant had lived in the house for nearly two years but a gas engineer only visited the property to carry out a safety check just before she moved out in June 2013.
The court was told that there were four gas fires and one gas boiler in the house which, under UK law, should have been checked annually by a Gas Safe registered engineer.
Blackburn Council first wrote to Mrs Hussain in October 2012 requesting proof of a gas safety check. This was followed up by four letters from the council and HSE, and a visit to the property where one of Mrs Hussain’s relatives lived as a further attempt to contact her.
HSE also issued an Improvement Notice on 30 April 2013 giving Mrs Hussain 26 days to arrange a gas safety check but she failed to meet the deadline for this.
Firm fined for silica failings despite previous warning
A natural stone supply firm has been fined for failing to protect workers from exposure to hazardous substances – despite a previous warning.
Teesdale Architectural Stone Ltd (TASL) was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for failings identified in an inspection of its Barnard Castle premises on 16 October 2012.
Darlington Magistrates’ Court heard that exposure to respirable crystalline silica (RCS), a substance that can cause fatal lung diseases, was not being adequately controlled.
Inspectors also found that the required health surveillance for the silica was not being carried out by the company.
The court was told that a previous inspection in 2007 identified similar concerns, and that the company was given advice on suitable control measures.
The HSE investigation established that despite tests revealing a high level of exposure to silica in 2007, little action had been taken to improve the control measures in order to reduce exposure.
The 2012 inspection also identified that equipment was not maintained in efficient working order, in good repair and was not in a clean condition.
The court also heard that although health surveillance on employees was carried out once in 2007, no further health surveillance was provided for employees exposed to RCS.
Teesdale Architectural Stone Ltd (TASL), of Harmire Road, Barnard Castle, County Durham, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 7(1) of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 and was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay £2,525.40 in costs.
After the hearing, HSE Inspector Sal Brecken said:
“Cutting stone can cause a lot of dust, which, if it is not controlled, can cause serious health effects – the most serious being silicosis which in its most acute form can be fatal.
“There is plenty of guidance available for stonemasons to help them improve existing control measures, and the health risks from silica dusts are insignificant when exposure to dust is properly controlled.
“There is no need to become ill through work activities and there is no excuse for companies not following the guidance. Teesdale Architectural Stone Ltd should have done more following the guidance offered to them by the HSE in 2007.”
Samera Hussain pleaded guilty to single breaches of the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 and the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by failing to arrange an annual gas safety check and failing to comply with an Improvement Notice.
Mrs Hussain, of Shakeshaft Street in Blackburn, was fined £260 and ordered to pay £207 in prosecution costs.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Richard Clarke said:
“Mrs Hussain potentially put her tenant’s life at risk by failing to arrange a gas safety check for nearly two years.
“We gave her several chances to organise an inspection, but she ignored all of these. As a result, we had no choice but to take legal action against her.
“Dozens of people are killed or badly harmed every year from carbon monoxide poisoning so it is vital that landlords take the risks seriously. We will continue to prosecute landlords who think the law doesn’t apply to them.”
Russell Kramer, Chief Executive of Gas Safe Register, commented:
“When it comes to rented property, it is important that landlords know their duties and tenants know their rights. A landlord must be able to provide a gas safety record for the property, showing that the gas appliances have been safety checked by a Gas Safe registered engineer in the last 12 months.
“Tenants can also sign up to a free reminder service at staygassafe.co.uk to make sure their landlord or managing agent is carrying out their duties of getting an annual gas safety check.
Newspaper group fined for guarding failure
Regional newspaper group Newsquest Media has been prosecuted after a Southampton worker was injured when his hand was caught in a rotating printer roller.
The 49-year-old employee suffered crush injuries to his thumb and middle finger as he attempted to remove a small piece of torn paper from the unguarded roller. He has since recovered and returned to work.
The incident, at Newsquest’s plant in Test Lane, Redbridge, Hampshire, on 6 February 2013, was investigated by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which brought the prosecution for safety failings.
Southampton Magistrates’ Court heard the employee and colleagues had been having problems with paper breaking and wrapping itself around ink rollers.
He had cleared most of the paper off and then put the machine into an 8,000 rotations per hour cycle. However, he noticed a bit of paper still on the roller and tried to brush it off with a piece of cloth. As he did, the cloth was dragged into the nip of the ink roller, injuring his right hand.
HSE found the employee was able to access the dangerous moving parts because sections of the press machine had been removed when employees were clearing paper from the ink rollers. It was a regular practice of print room staff to deal with paper breaks in this way.
Newsquest Media (Southern) Ltd, registered at Weybridge, Surrey, was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £1,560 in costs after admitting a breach of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.
After the case, HSE Inspector Guy Widdowson said:
“This was an easily preventable incident. If Newsquest had ensured its employees ran the press with the machine rollers not exposed, there would have been no injury. It was only down to luck that an incident had not happened before and also that this injury was not more serious.
“It is critical that companies make sure that effective guards are in place on machinery to protect their employees from dangerous moving parts. If there is a part of a machine that serves another purpose but is protecting staff from contact regardless, then it needs to be treated as a guard.”
Video footage lands skip firm owner in court
The owner of a skip hire firm in Bacup has been fined after he was filmed putting an employee’s life in danger by lifting him in a digger bucket.
Christopher Jones was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after a concerned member of the public videoed the incident at Shadlock Skips on Newchurch Road on 1 May 2013.
Burnley Magistrates’ Court heard that Mr Jones, 44 from Rossendale, and an employee had been trying to remove a small piece of damaged plywood above the main shutter doors.
No measures were put in place to prevent the worker falling around four metres from the bucket to the ground below.
The court was told much safer methods of carrying out the work were available on the site. These included attaching a man-riding cage to the front of the vehicle or simply using a ladder.
Mr Jones previously received a warning from HSE less than two months before the incident after the same employee was witnessed riding on top of a fully laden skip wagon as it reversed into the site.
Christopher Jones, of West View Road in Rossendale, was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay £1,039 in prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 on 16 May 2014.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector David Myrtle said:
“Falls from height are a major cause of workplace deaths in Great Britain. It’s for this reason that HSE takes work at height seriously and expects employers, such as Mr Jones, to do the same.
“He knew that raising his employee in the bucket of the telehandler was wrong but thought that since the job would only take a minute it would be ok.
“That minute has cost Mr Jones dearly but had the employee fallen from the bucket then the cost to him and his family would have been immeasurable. It’s never ok to put someone’s life in danger – no matter how long it lasts.”
London developer fined for work at height risks
The owner and developer of a construction site in Raynes Park has appeared in court after a sharp-eyed safety inspector twice spotted dangerous work at height from the carriage of a passing train.
A closer inspection of the site on Coombes Lane confirmed work was taking place on and around the roof of a three-storey building without any measures in place to prevent or mitigate a fall.
Peter Alexander Ross, 55, of Putney, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) as the principal contractor and construction manager for the work.
Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard that Mr Ross part-owned the site in question and was overseeing a project to replace former shops with a new-build mixed use complex.
A HSE inspector first spotted unsafe work on 19 August 2013 as he passed by on a train. He headed straight for the site after getting off at the next station, and immediately served a Prohibition Notice to prevent any further work at height until adequate safety measures were put in place.
However, the same inspector making the same train journey witnessed near identical activity less than two months later on 29 October. He again got off the train and visited site before issuing two further notices.
The court was told that although nobody was injured at the site, the fall risk was significant. As the designated principal contractor and person in control of the work, it was Mr Ross’s responsibility to ensure sufficient safety measures were in place.
Peter Alexander Ross, of Beaufort Close, Lynden Gate, SW15, was fined a total of £16,000 and ordered to pay a further £1,200 in costs after pleading guilty to single breaches of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.
After the hearing, HSE inspector Mike Gibb commented: “Peter Ross was the client for the project and appointed himself as the principal contractor. As such the onus was on him to ensure effective safe working methods and procedures were in place.
“The work at height activity we witnessed was inherently unsafe, and the fact we twice had to stop work at the site just weeks apart is shocking. As a dutyholder he failed to learn, and he clearly wasn’t up to standard.
“Principal contractors must ensure they devote adequate resources to planning, managing and monitoring work. If they do not have sufficient expertise themselves in project and site management, and adequate health and safety knowledge, they must ensure they have competent sources of advice and support.
“Clients must also think carefully before they appoint themselves as principal contractor. They must have the necessary competence to fulfil this role. If not, then a suitably qualified contractor should be brought in.”
