Café refused to serve customer in outside dining area
Issue
A waitress refused to serve the enquirer who was sitting in the outside area of the café because it was raining. The enquirer wrote and complained to customer services who advised that she was not served because on the day of her visit, the outside dining area of the restaurant was not open and the team were not able to allow customers to sit and dine in that area. They stated that for health and safety reasons, each section of the restaurant must be looked after and served by an allocated waiter or waitress. Staffing numbers did not allow for the outdoor area to be open.Panel opinion
This is a very clear cut example of very poor customer service disguised with the all too easy "health and safety" excuse. If restaurants want to close off seating areas they should put up clear signs to this effect not use lame excuses when someone sits there and they are unwilling to serve them.Hotel chain could not provide a lower mattress for a disabled customer
Issue
Enquirer is disabled and in a wheelchair. She had requested and been provided with a lower mattress in the same hotel (which is part of a hotel group) twice before, however, on a third occasion the hotel advised that they could not provide one as "this is not in line with our health and safety legislation, nor our insurance cover".Panel opinion
There are no provisions of health and safety legislation that would prevent the hotel agreeing to a guest’s reasonable request for a lower mattress. The response from the hotel chain simply does not stack up, given that it had been able to provide lower mattresses on previous occasions, had prior notice of the request on this occasion and had confirmed that the request would be met. This is a clear case of poor customer service and poor communication and disregard for the needs of a disabled customer.Violence at work
The number and incidence rate of violent incidents at work has declined over the last decade.
Findings from the 2013/14 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) show that:
- the risk of being a victim of actual or threatened violence at work is similar to the last five years with an estimated 1.1% of working adults the victims of one or more violent incidents at work (CSEW)
- in 2013/14, the survey estimated 257 000 adults of working age in employment experienced work related violence including threats and physical assault
- there were an estimated 583 000 incidents of violence at work according to the 2013/14 CSEW, comprising 269 000 assaults and 314 000 threats. This was lower than the estimated 656 000 incidents in the 2012/13 survey but this change is not statistically significant.
- the 2013/14 CSEW estimated that 1.0% of women and 1.2% of men were victims of violence at work once or more during the year prior to their interview
- it is estimated that 56% of victims reported one incident of work related violence whilst 17% experienced two incidents of work related violence and 27% experienced three or more incidents
- strangers were the offenders in 56% of the reported incidents of workplace violence. Among the 44% of incidents where the offender was known, the offenders were most likely to be clients or a member of the public known through work.
- the survey found 72 % per cent of violence at work resulted in no physical injury. Of the remaining 28 % of cases, minor bruising or a black eye accounted for the majority of the injuries recorded.
- in 2013/14 there were 4 936 RIDDOR reports of injuries to employees involving acts of violence in Great Britain (one fatality, 866 major or specified injuries, and 4 069 over-7-day injuries). More information on over 7-day injuries is available.
Worker’s death uncovers serious safety failures
- An investigation into the death of a worker installing guttering at a home in Llandudno found he was using an unsafe ladder, a court heard today.
Gethin Kirwan, 35, who lived in Hoole, Chester, was working at a property in Llanrhos Road on 4 April 2013 when he fell from the ladder, sustaining a fatal head injury.
Thomas Price, who runs a roofline products’ business, employed Mr Kirwan to carry out the work and was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) at Wrexham Magistrates’ court.
HSE’s investigation found that the ladder provided by Mr Price was in an extremely poor state. Although HSE accepted the ladder was not responsible for Mr Kirwan’s fall, it did have a number of serious safety defects which had the potential to cause serious incidents. Two other ladders provided for use on the job had similar critical defects.
HSE found the feet of the ladder were worn through, rungs were bent and one was missing. The defects were obvious through even a cursory inspection and made the ladder unfit for use.
Thomas Price, of Marnel Drive, Pentre, Deeside pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations and was fined £4000 and ordered to pay £4000 in costs.
The court also granted a Forfeiture & Destruction Order for the ladders.
HSE Inspector Chris Wilcox, speaking after the hearing, said:
“Although Mr Kirwan’s death was not attributable to the ladder it was in an appalling state and should never have been used.
“All work equipment must be maintained in a safe condition for use and checked regularly for any damage. For ladders, a quick and simple visual check should be done to look for any obvious defects.
“The most common and critical issues are worn or missing feet and damage to the rungs and stiles which are very easy to spot.”
Thomas Price, who runs a roofline products’ business, employed Mr Kirwan to carry out the work and was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) at Wrexham Magistrates’ court.
HSE’s investigation found that the ladder provided by Mr Price was in an extremely poor state. Although HSE accepted the ladder was not responsible for Mr Kirwan’s fall, it did have a number of serious safety defects which had the potential to cause serious incidents. Two other ladders provided for use on the job had similar critical defects.
HSE found the feet of the ladder were worn through, rungs were bent and one was missing. The defects were obvious through even a cursory inspection and made the ladder unfit for use.
Thomas Price, of Marnel Drive, Pentre, Deeside pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations and was fined £4000 and ordered to pay £4000 in costs.
The court also granted a Forfeiture & Destruction Order for the ladders.
HSE Inspector Chris Wilcox, speaking after the hearing, said:
“Although Mr Kirwan’s death was not attributable to the ladder it was in an appalling state and should never have been used.
“All work equipment must be maintained in a safe condition for use and checked regularly for any damage. For ladders, a quick and simple visual check should be done to look for any obvious defects.
“The most common and critical issues are worn or missing feet and damage to the rungs and stiles which are very easy to spot.”
Firm in court after man died in roof fall
- An business has been fined for serious safety failings after a man died when he fell more than five metres through a fragile roof.
Latvian national Nikolajs Naumovs, 57, had arrived in Scotland only two weeks before his fatal fall. He had been working on a roof at premises in College Bounds, Fraserburgh, owned by local butchery company Bruce of the Broch 1886 Ltd.
Peterhead Sheriff Court was told that on 21 August 2009 Mr Naumovs was working with his nephew to remove asbestos cement sheets from the roof of a building. They had reached the roof using a telehandler, and, while the basket was on the ground being unloaded, the two were sitting near the apex of the roof. Suddenly and without warning, the roof collapsed beneath them.
His nephew managed to grab something and was left hanging from a wall but Mr Naumovs fell five and a half metres to the concrete floor below and died at the scene from head injuries.
The court heard that Mr Naumovs and his son Juris had arrived in Scotland in early August to work and were staying with his other son, Vjaceslavs, and nephew Nikolajs Cernovs.
Both Vjaceslavs and Nikolajs were employed by the company which, although it was primarily a family butchers, was converting premises in College Bounds into residential property.
An investigation by the HSE found that the evening before the incident the company’s managing director had visited the property to plan the next day’s work with the pair. Neither of the men had a thorough grasp of the English language. They formed the impression that they were to start removing the roof the following morning in his absence.
The two men appear to have further formed the impression that they could bring in additional workers to undertake this task, if required, who would be paid by the company for any work they did. Consequently they asked Nikolajs and Juris Naumovs to help dismantle the roof the next day.
The investigation concluded that the circumstances leading up to the fatal incident showed poor communication, a lack of instruction and supervision, the use of equipment which was not suitable for the task, and the work being carried out in a manifestly unsafe manner.
Although the men should never have been on the roof itself at all, as the telehandler being used was not suitable for this work activity, the company would have been able to intervene to stop the roofing work had there been more effective and regular supervision.
Bruce of the Broch 1886 Ltd, of Broad Street, Fraserburgh, Aberdeenshire, was fined £80,000, reduced to £60,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
Following the case, HSE principal inspector Niall Miller said:
“This tragic incident could have been avoided had the work been planned properly and carried out with the correct equipment.
“This type of work should ideally be undertaken without the need to directly access the roof, for example by using a Mobile Elevated Working Platform, or, if that is not possible, with safety measures to minimise the risk of falling such as crawling boards, fall arrest harnesses or netting.
“In addition, an employer needs to arrange suitable training and instruction to ensure that persons working there clearly understand not only what they are expected to do but also how they are expected to do it in order to ensure a safe system of work will be followed.
“In this case the difficulties arising from the language barrier resulted in fatal consequences.”
The risks associated with work at height, and fragile roofs in particular, are very well known, and HSE has produced substantial amounts of free advice to assist duty holders to comply with the relevant legislative and regulatory requirements.
Falls from height continue to be the most common cause of fatality to workers. In the year 2013/2014 they accounted for 29% of deaths reported to HSE, meaning that 19 workers lost their lives after a fall that year.
Peterhead Sheriff Court was told that on 21 August 2009 Mr Naumovs was working with his nephew to remove asbestos cement sheets from the roof of a building. They had reached the roof using a telehandler, and, while the basket was on the ground being unloaded, the two were sitting near the apex of the roof. Suddenly and without warning, the roof collapsed beneath them.
His nephew managed to grab something and was left hanging from a wall but Mr Naumovs fell five and a half metres to the concrete floor below and died at the scene from head injuries.
The court heard that Mr Naumovs and his son Juris had arrived in Scotland in early August to work and were staying with his other son, Vjaceslavs, and nephew Nikolajs Cernovs.
Both Vjaceslavs and Nikolajs were employed by the company which, although it was primarily a family butchers, was converting premises in College Bounds into residential property.
An investigation by the HSE found that the evening before the incident the company’s managing director had visited the property to plan the next day’s work with the pair. Neither of the men had a thorough grasp of the English language. They formed the impression that they were to start removing the roof the following morning in his absence.
The two men appear to have further formed the impression that they could bring in additional workers to undertake this task, if required, who would be paid by the company for any work they did. Consequently they asked Nikolajs and Juris Naumovs to help dismantle the roof the next day.
The investigation concluded that the circumstances leading up to the fatal incident showed poor communication, a lack of instruction and supervision, the use of equipment which was not suitable for the task, and the work being carried out in a manifestly unsafe manner.
Although the men should never have been on the roof itself at all, as the telehandler being used was not suitable for this work activity, the company would have been able to intervene to stop the roofing work had there been more effective and regular supervision.
Bruce of the Broch 1886 Ltd, of Broad Street, Fraserburgh, Aberdeenshire, was fined £80,000, reduced to £60,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
Following the case, HSE principal inspector Niall Miller said:
“This tragic incident could have been avoided had the work been planned properly and carried out with the correct equipment.
“This type of work should ideally be undertaken without the need to directly access the roof, for example by using a Mobile Elevated Working Platform, or, if that is not possible, with safety measures to minimise the risk of falling such as crawling boards, fall arrest harnesses or netting.
“In addition, an employer needs to arrange suitable training and instruction to ensure that persons working there clearly understand not only what they are expected to do but also how they are expected to do it in order to ensure a safe system of work will be followed.
“In this case the difficulties arising from the language barrier resulted in fatal consequences.”
The risks associated with work at height, and fragile roofs in particular, are very well known, and HSE has produced substantial amounts of free advice to assist duty holders to comply with the relevant legislative and regulatory requirements.
Falls from height continue to be the most common cause of fatality to workers. In the year 2013/2014 they accounted for 29% of deaths reported to HSE, meaning that 19 workers lost their lives after a fall that year.
Dangerous demolition put workers in danger
- A demolition firm in Windsor has appeared in court after being caught on camera risking the lives of workers on the roof of a disused pub.
A concerned member of the public contacted the HSE with photographs showing workers removing tiles from the roof with no precautions in place to prevent them falling up to six metres to the ground below.
An HSE inspector visited the site in Windsor on 7 January 2014, the same day as seeing the photographs, and served an immediate enforcement notice on AG Edwards & Son Demolition Ltd after viewing the dangers first hand. The notice prohibited any further work at height until adequate safety measures were in place to protect the two workmen on site.
Reading Magistrates’ Court was told that AG Edwards & Son had clearly put the two men in danger by failing to plan the removal of the tiles to recognised standards. It also failed to manage or monitor the roof work, leading to the workers being exposed to a totally unnecessary risk of falling.
AG Edwards & Son Demolition Ltd, of Oxford Road, Windsor, Berks, was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £1,053 in costs after admitting a breach of the Work at Height Regulations.
Following the hearing, HSE inspector Dominic Goacher said:
“AG Edwards & Son put the lives at risk of two workers by carrying out this demolition job in a totally unsafe manner. Anyone falling from the roof of that disused pub would likely be killed and that type of disregard for safety is totally unacceptable.
“The company failed to follow basic safety precautions and heed the freely available guidance available. Had the work been planned correctly, suitable protection such as a scaffold, a fully-guarded platform and edge protection would have been in place.”
An HSE inspector visited the site in Windsor on 7 January 2014, the same day as seeing the photographs, and served an immediate enforcement notice on AG Edwards & Son Demolition Ltd after viewing the dangers first hand. The notice prohibited any further work at height until adequate safety measures were in place to protect the two workmen on site.
Reading Magistrates’ Court was told that AG Edwards & Son had clearly put the two men in danger by failing to plan the removal of the tiles to recognised standards. It also failed to manage or monitor the roof work, leading to the workers being exposed to a totally unnecessary risk of falling.
AG Edwards & Son Demolition Ltd, of Oxford Road, Windsor, Berks, was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £1,053 in costs after admitting a breach of the Work at Height Regulations.
Following the hearing, HSE inspector Dominic Goacher said:
“AG Edwards & Son put the lives at risk of two workers by carrying out this demolition job in a totally unsafe manner. Anyone falling from the roof of that disused pub would likely be killed and that type of disregard for safety is totally unacceptable.
“The company failed to follow basic safety precautions and heed the freely available guidance available. Had the work been planned correctly, suitable protection such as a scaffold, a fully-guarded platform and edge protection would have been in place.”
Roofing firm in court after worker’s fall
- A Leicestershire roofing company has been fined after a worker fell more than three metres through a fragile roof light.
The 59-year-old employee of Stormseal Roofing (Nationwide) Ltd, who is from Nuneaton, was over-cladding an asbestos cement sheet roof at premises in Colwick, Nottingham, when the incident happened on 15 April 2013.
Nottingham Magistrates’ Court heard he was working from a staging board repairing a damaged sheet when he fell through the adjacent roof light onto a mezzanine below.
He broke his pelvis, left shoulder and left elbow.
A HSE investigation found that Stormseal’s normal method of work was to install netting beneath the roof to stop anyone if they fell. However, the mezzanine underneath the area where they were working was used by the client to store tyres so nets were not used, but no alternative was provided.
There was a risk assessment and a method statement but they had been carried out by someone who had not had any formal training and were generic documents which lacked sufficient detail and did not accurately reflect the conditions on site.
Although Stormseal had contracted a local scaffolder to erect perimeter edge protection around the building, it did not extend around a section of the main roof exposing workers to the risk of falls of around six feet to a lower section.
Stormseal Roofing (Nationwide) Ltd, of Oaks Way Industrial Estate, Station Road, Earl Shilton, was fined £16,000 with £1,783 costs after admitting a breach of Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations.
After the hearing, HSE inspector Linda-Jane Rigby said:
“The risks associated with work at height on or near fragile materials are well known, as are the controls needed to address those risks.
“Stormseal failed to identify the need for alternative measures for preventing or mitigating the consequences of a fall from the leading edge of either the staging boards or the newly-fitted roof sheets. As a result a man suffered painful injuries that could and should have been prevented.”
Nottingham Magistrates’ Court heard he was working from a staging board repairing a damaged sheet when he fell through the adjacent roof light onto a mezzanine below.
He broke his pelvis, left shoulder and left elbow.
A HSE investigation found that Stormseal’s normal method of work was to install netting beneath the roof to stop anyone if they fell. However, the mezzanine underneath the area where they were working was used by the client to store tyres so nets were not used, but no alternative was provided.
There was a risk assessment and a method statement but they had been carried out by someone who had not had any formal training and were generic documents which lacked sufficient detail and did not accurately reflect the conditions on site.
Although Stormseal had contracted a local scaffolder to erect perimeter edge protection around the building, it did not extend around a section of the main roof exposing workers to the risk of falls of around six feet to a lower section.
Stormseal Roofing (Nationwide) Ltd, of Oaks Way Industrial Estate, Station Road, Earl Shilton, was fined £16,000 with £1,783 costs after admitting a breach of Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations.
After the hearing, HSE inspector Linda-Jane Rigby said:
“The risks associated with work at height on or near fragile materials are well known, as are the controls needed to address those risks.
“Stormseal failed to identify the need for alternative measures for preventing or mitigating the consequences of a fall from the leading edge of either the staging boards or the newly-fitted roof sheets. As a result a man suffered painful injuries that could and should have been prevented.”
Firm in court after portable building collapses on churchgoers
- A company has been fined after a two-storey portable building collapsed while more than 30 children and parents were playing in the lower room.
South Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court heard the incident happened at Ashbourne Elim Pentecostal Church in Derbyshire while two volunteers – one of them partially sighted – were preparing parcels for the church’s foodbank in the upper cabin.
The two cabins had been refurbished and installed by Relocatable Building Systems Ltd in September 2013. A month later, on 24 October, both cabins dropped when a bolt on the jacking leg of the lower unit sheared off. The top part of the leg came out of the wooden frame, causing the collapse.
The upper cabin came to rest on the roof of the lower one at one corner, sending a number of food items falling off the shelves in the upper building. One of the volunteers suffered a bruised arm and, although no-one else was injured, all were badly shaken. Senior pastor, Rev Ben Brown said it was a ‘miracle’ the lower cabin had not collapsed on them.
A HSE investigation found the company had refurbished the buildings before their installation at the church. New inner sections of the jacking legs were installed but the original pins, used to adjust the height of the legs, could not be fitted due to the holes not being drilled to the correct size. Instead, smaller bolts, which were not designed for this purpose, were used, meaning they would fail at some time in the future.
An Improvement Notice was served by HSE on Relocatable Building Systems Ltd requiring the company to develop safe systems of work to ensure refurbished buildings were safe. Both cabins at the church were repaired and reinstalled.
Relocatable Building Systems Ltd, of Hilton Industrial Estate, Sutton Lane, Hilton, Derby was fined a total of £8,000 with £1,589 costs after admitting two breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Steve Shaw said:
“This was a terrifying incident for those involved and left a lot of people scared and upset.
“During installation the company should have carried out a final check to ensure all the work had been completed and the two cabins were bolted together safely. It is very lucky that the top cabin stayed in contact with three of the jacking legs as this prevented the full weight coming to rest on the wooden frame of the lower unit where children were playing. The wooden frames are not designed to take the weight of an upper unit so it could have quite easily come crashing down with horrific consequences.
“The collapse could have been avoided by Relocatable Building Systems had the refurbishment been undertaken in a suitable manner using the same or better specification material as the original.
“The church was unable to rent out the rooms while they were away being fixed and when they were reinstalled some months later, there was a lot of suspicion and doubt about their safety from the community the church serves.”
Senior Pastor, Rev Ben Brown, whose wife and two-year-old son were in the lower room at the time of the incident, said:
“It was a complete miracle that it did not fall further but came to rest where it did. Another half inch and the consequences would have been devastating. I think someone was certainly looking after us that day.
“It was horrific. The community’s confidence in the church was destroyed through no fault of our own and we had to build that trust back up again. There is still some suspicion and a few people still refuse to go in the buildings, even though they’ve been back in place for over a year. There’s no doubt our relationship with the community suffered as a result of what happened.”
The two cabins had been refurbished and installed by Relocatable Building Systems Ltd in September 2013. A month later, on 24 October, both cabins dropped when a bolt on the jacking leg of the lower unit sheared off. The top part of the leg came out of the wooden frame, causing the collapse.
The upper cabin came to rest on the roof of the lower one at one corner, sending a number of food items falling off the shelves in the upper building. One of the volunteers suffered a bruised arm and, although no-one else was injured, all were badly shaken. Senior pastor, Rev Ben Brown said it was a ‘miracle’ the lower cabin had not collapsed on them.
A HSE investigation found the company had refurbished the buildings before their installation at the church. New inner sections of the jacking legs were installed but the original pins, used to adjust the height of the legs, could not be fitted due to the holes not being drilled to the correct size. Instead, smaller bolts, which were not designed for this purpose, were used, meaning they would fail at some time in the future.
An Improvement Notice was served by HSE on Relocatable Building Systems Ltd requiring the company to develop safe systems of work to ensure refurbished buildings were safe. Both cabins at the church were repaired and reinstalled.
Relocatable Building Systems Ltd, of Hilton Industrial Estate, Sutton Lane, Hilton, Derby was fined a total of £8,000 with £1,589 costs after admitting two breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Steve Shaw said:
“This was a terrifying incident for those involved and left a lot of people scared and upset.
“During installation the company should have carried out a final check to ensure all the work had been completed and the two cabins were bolted together safely. It is very lucky that the top cabin stayed in contact with three of the jacking legs as this prevented the full weight coming to rest on the wooden frame of the lower unit where children were playing. The wooden frames are not designed to take the weight of an upper unit so it could have quite easily come crashing down with horrific consequences.
“The collapse could have been avoided by Relocatable Building Systems had the refurbishment been undertaken in a suitable manner using the same or better specification material as the original.
“The church was unable to rent out the rooms while they were away being fixed and when they were reinstalled some months later, there was a lot of suspicion and doubt about their safety from the community the church serves.”
Senior Pastor, Rev Ben Brown, whose wife and two-year-old son were in the lower room at the time of the incident, said:
“It was a complete miracle that it did not fall further but came to rest where it did. Another half inch and the consequences would have been devastating. I think someone was certainly looking after us that day.
“It was horrific. The community’s confidence in the church was destroyed through no fault of our own and we had to build that trust back up again. There is still some suspicion and a few people still refuse to go in the buildings, even though they’ve been back in place for over a year. There’s no doubt our relationship with the community suffered as a result of what happened.”
Court for Essex firm
- An Essex firm has been fined for neglecting chemical safety after a fire involving a brazier and a drum of thinners led to safety breaches being uncovered at its Rainham site.
CLB Refridgeration Ltd, which cleans and refurbishes industrial-size refridgeration containers, was prosecuted by the HSE at Southwark Crown Court after its investigation.
The court heard that a 25-litre drum of paint thinners was involved in an incident in October 2012 where a fireball erupted in a brazier at the company’s site in Ferry Lane.
HSE told the court that CLB Refrigeration Ltd failed in its duties to assess and control the use of paint thinners – the company was not aware how workers were using the dangerous substance and were also unaware that a brazier was being used to burn rubbish.
The investigation identified that thinners was being used to clean marks off the containers that were being refurbished and that when the skips were full the employees would sometimes burn material they had removed from the refrigeration containers in the brazier.
HSE found that the company had not properly assessed the risks involved in using and storing paint thinners, and had fallen far below the standard of controlling the risks. CLB Refrigeration failed to ensure it had full knowledge of all the chemicals on site, how they were being used and failed to undertake an assessment of the risks involved.
CLB Refrigeration Ltd of Parkside, Woodside, Grays, Essex, pleaded guilty to two breaches of the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 and was fined a total of £22,500 and ordered to pay £9243 in costs.
After the hearing, HSE Inspector Monica Babb said:
“CLB Refrigeration Ltd should have been aware of what dangerous substances their workers were using, and how. A proper risk assessment was key to making sure that suitable, effective control measures were in place and the brazier was removed from site.”
The court heard that a 25-litre drum of paint thinners was involved in an incident in October 2012 where a fireball erupted in a brazier at the company’s site in Ferry Lane.
HSE told the court that CLB Refrigeration Ltd failed in its duties to assess and control the use of paint thinners – the company was not aware how workers were using the dangerous substance and were also unaware that a brazier was being used to burn rubbish.
The investigation identified that thinners was being used to clean marks off the containers that were being refurbished and that when the skips were full the employees would sometimes burn material they had removed from the refrigeration containers in the brazier.
HSE found that the company had not properly assessed the risks involved in using and storing paint thinners, and had fallen far below the standard of controlling the risks. CLB Refrigeration failed to ensure it had full knowledge of all the chemicals on site, how they were being used and failed to undertake an assessment of the risks involved.
CLB Refrigeration Ltd of Parkside, Woodside, Grays, Essex, pleaded guilty to two breaches of the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 and was fined a total of £22,500 and ordered to pay £9243 in costs.
After the hearing, HSE Inspector Monica Babb said:
“CLB Refrigeration Ltd should have been aware of what dangerous substances their workers were using, and how. A proper risk assessment was key to making sure that suitable, effective control measures were in place and the brazier was removed from site.”
No comments:
Post a Comment