New construction guidance to stop workers dying each week from occupational disease

The construction industry has launched new guidance to encourage better management of occupational health risks. The HSE is urging the industry to put an end to the hundreds of construction workers that die of occupational diseases every month.

Inspectors issued more than 200 health related enforcement notices during the recent HSE’s construction inspection initiative.

This highlighted the widespread misunderstanding of what ‘occupational health’ means in the construction sector and the employers’ misguided perception that health is more difficult to manage than safety.

The new guide ‘Occupational health risk management in construction’ ^[1]has been written by the Construction Industry Advisory Committee (ConIAC) Health Risks Working Group and formatted with the assistance of the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH).

It gives practical advice on what ‘health risk’ means for the construction industry, and the role of occupational health service provision in preventing or controlling those risks.

Ian Strudley, Chair of the ConIAC Health Risks Working Group and HSE Principal Specialist Inspector said: ““The misunderstanding of occupational health within the construction sector means that whilst the industry focus on managing the more familiar safety issues, serious health risks get ignored. We cannot let this continue.

“When figures show that construction workers are at least 100 times more likely to die from a disease caused or made worse by their work as they are from a fatal accident, the industry must take action.”

Shelley Frost, Executive Director – Policy at IOSH, said: “There have been huge advances in improving safety in the construction sector over the last 15 years but the industry has yet to generate such advances in improving the picture in occupational health.

“Every week, 100 people die from construction-related ill health in the UK. Less than half of construction workers also stay employed in the industry until they are 60.

“This new guide raises awareness of the occupational health issues in construction, demystifies how to best manage them and provides information as to where firms can get help and assistance.

“Ultimately, if the advice is followed, it could help to lower incidence rates of occupational ill-health and transform the perception of working in construction to that of an attractive and respectful industry with great career choices.”

For more information visit:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/meetings/iacs/coniac/coniac-oh-guidance.pdf

HSE prosecution round up:

 

Contractor in court for putting workers lives at risk with poor site safety

A building contractor has been fined after unsafe excavations at a care home site put workers and members of the public at risk.

Brierstone Limited was issued with an immediate Prohibition Potice (PN) by an inspector from the HSE stopping work being carried out within five meters of the excavations.

Trafford Magistrates’ Court heard that a visit had been made to the site adjacent to 3 Barke Street, Littleborough on the 9 September 2014 following a concern raised by a member of the public regarding unsupported excavations.

The HSE investigation found two large unsupported excavations on either side of the site. One adjacent to the car park of a public house and another next to domestic premises. Operatives were seen working in the direct vicinity of the unsupported faces, which were in excess of four metres deep. Small piles of debris at the bottom of the excavations suggested there had already been some movement.

Brierstone Ltd had failed to take steps to ensure that the excavations were adequately supported or battered back in order to prevent collapse and possible injury to the site workers.

Brierstone Ltd of Sterling house, Middleton Road, Chadderton, Manchester was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,190.97 after pleading guilty to a breach of Regulation 31(1) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.

Worker suffered fatal crush injuries after being hit by lorry

A commercial vehicle company was ordered to pay £212,500 in fines and costs after one of its workers was killed when a lorry travelling at less than 5km/h crushed him.

Warwick Crown Court heard Imperial Commercials Limited failed to provide a safe place for its staff to work, which led to the death of one its employees, Craig Stewart Dunn, in January 2014.

Mr Dunn was hit by a heavy goods vehicle whose driver could not see what was immediately (up to six metres) in front of him, as the front grill of the HGV he was driving was raised. This was not the first time this practice had been adopted at this site. The court was told that occasionally employees of Imperial Commercials Limited would drive HGV’s around the Wellesbourne site in this unsafe manner.

The driver thought he had just hit a stationary vehicle. On reversing, he realised he had crushed Mr Dunn, who had been working outside Imperial Commercials Limited’s workshop in Loxley Road.

Imperial Commercials Limited, registered at Imperial House, High Street High, Wycombe, was fined £166,000, and ordered to pay £46,500 in costs after pleading guilty at an earlier hearing to offences under Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

 

Drainage company fined for excavation collapse

A Slough drainage company has been fined after a worker was seriously injured when an unsafe excavation collapsed during work to lay new pipes outside a home near Canterbury.

Michael Simpkins, now 42, from Oxshott in Surrey, sustained multiple fractures to his left leg in the incident at a property in Conyngham Lane, Bridge, on 7 April 2011. He was unable to work for six weeks before later resigning because of recurring pain and psychological trauma.

His employer UKDN Waterflow Limited, now in administration and called UWIC realisations limited and then called The UK Drainage Network Limited, was prosecuted by the HSE after an investigation found the excavation pit was missing vital shoring.

Folkestone Magistrates’ Court heard the injured worker was cutting and cleaning a pipe for re-joining at a depth in excess of two metres when a side of the pit suddenly gave way, creating a slip of soil and debris.

The lower half of his body was completely buried, with the weight of the material buckling his leg as it crashed down. He was dug out by a colleague and taken to hospital.

HSE established that there was nothing in place to support the excavation and prevent the collapse, despite this being a clear and common risk for this kind of work. There was also no evidence of suitable planning or supervision.

Magistrates were told that in February 2011, just weeks before the Bridge collapse, HSE received a complaint about another UKDN excavation that suffered a partial collapse. Nobody was injured on this occasion, but it should have served as a warning that adequate shoring is required at all times.

UKDN Waterflow Limited, previously of Waterside Drive, Langley, Slough, was fined a total of £60,000 and ordered to pay a further 39,506 in costs after failing to attend court and being found guilty of three separate breaches of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. 

HSE Myth Busters: 

Dog banned from hire car for “health and safety” reasons

Issue

A dog was not allowed into a hire care for “health and safety reasons”.  The owner was also told that the garage concerned does not like dog hair in courtesy or hire car vehicles.

Panel opinion
Health and safety at work legislation does not prohibit the carriage of pet dogs in vehicles for domestic use.  The company has taken a decision to exclude the carriage of dogs for cleanliness reasons.  The company should be transparent about the real reason for inclusion of this clause in their contract rather than use the “health and safety” excuse.

Child refused entry to swimming pool for wearing incorrect swimwear

Issue
A child was refused entry into a swimming pool for health and safety reasons.  It was cited by the leisure centre that unacceptable swimwear was the reason the child could not swim

Panel opinion

There is no health and safety legislation which specifies that particular swimwear must be worn. The pool management are right to exercise judgment about what is/is not suitable for swimming but it would be helpful to explain this properly, perhaps by displaying a clear policy statement rather than simply falling back on the catch all health and safety excuse when something is deemed unsuitable. 

Disabled children banned from playing with toilet roll centres due to health and safety

Issue
A trainer specialising in delivery of training for disabled children was told that they can no longer give children toilet roll centres to play with because of health and safety.

Panel opinion

A trainer specialising in delivery of training for disabled children was told that they can no longer give children toilet roll centres to play with because of health and safety.

Weighbridge at A23 Handcross, no longer for public use following ‘new health and safety regulations’

Issue

Public unable to use weighbridge at the A23 in Handcross under new health and safety regulations.

Panel opinion

This matter relates to road design and traffic legislation rather than health and safety at work but, on the basis of the information to hand, the panel agree with the relevant authorities that it is a sensible change to have made in the light of the changes to road layout. Vehicles exiting the site would now have to merge into fast moving traffic on the main highway.

 

HSE Chief Inspector challenges small construction sites to act now to manage workers health and safety

The HSE’s Chief Inspector of Construction is challenging the refurbishment industry to act now and protect their workers, after 46% of sites fell below standards during a recent inspection initiative.

HSE targeted small refurbishment sites during the month long drive and 692 enforcement notices and 983 notifications of contravention had to be served where there was a material breach of health and/or safety. Inspectors had to deal with immediate risks, such as work at height, and also to deal with sites where workers were being exposed to silica dust and asbestos, which cause long term health problems.

Health and safety breaches were also followed up with clients and designers, reinforcing their duties under the Construction Design and Management Regulations (CDM) 2015 and help them understand their responsibilities.

Peter Baker, the HSE’s Chief Inspector of Construction said: “It is disappointing that some small refurbishment sites are still cutting corners and not properly protecting their workers. Falls from height are the most common killer in the industry but we still found workers put at risk to save minutes on the job – believing it wouldn’t happen to them.

“The mis-conception that health issues cannot be controlled is simply not true and ruining people’s lives. Harmful dust, whether silica or wood, is a serious issue and can be managed effectively with the right design, equipment and training. Health effects may not be immediate but the ultimate impact on workers and their families can be devastating. Each week 100 construction workers die from occupational disease.”

“HSE inspectors found lots of good examples of small sites carrying out work safely, proving it can be done. Larger construction sites accepted the challenge a few years ago and have made big improvements, which all of the industry can learn from. My message to smaller businesses is don’t wait for an accident or visit from an inspector before you make the change, but act now and learn from your colleagues’ example.”
 

HSE Prosecutions round-up:

 

Building firm fined after worker hit by mobile platform

Construction company Base Build Services Limited has been prosecuted after a worker was injured by a boom type mobile elevated working platform (MEWP) when it fell from the forks of a tele-handler machine.

The 31-year-old worker from Birmingham broke his leg and suffered facial injuries in the incident at Abbey Trading Centre, Alvechurch Highway, Redditch on 19 November 2014.

Redditch Magistrates’ Court heard that the injured worker was employed by a groundworks contractor carrying out work for Base Build Services Limited.

A MEWP had been left in their area of work and needed to be moved to enable work to continue.  A telescopic handler was being used to move the MEWP when it fell from its forks and hit the worker.

An investigation by the HSE found that Base Build Services Limited was aware work was due to start in the area where the MEWP was stored and that the MEWP would need to be moved before work could continue.  However, no plan or instructions for the removal of the MEWP had been provided.

In addition, the lead labourer was standing by the telescopic handler at the time that the lift was taking place but failed to take action to stop the lifting operation, even though it was clearly unsafe.  The HSE investigation found that the telescopic handler was overloaded and the MEWP was not lifted in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

Base Build Services Limited, of Abbey Road, London, pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 22(1)(a) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. The company was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,647.92

 
Building contractor fined for safety failings

A building company firm has been fined for safety failings after an employee suffered permanent injury to his eye from lack of correct protection.

Luton Magistrates’ Court heard how on 15 November 2013 an employee of Steele & Bray Limited, of Northampton, was injured when he was hit in the eye by a shard of metal when a work colleague was operating a nail gun to fasten a piece of timber to a steel lintel. The court also heard that the eye-protection being worn by the nail gun operator, being lightweight ‘spectacle’ types rather than impact absorbing ‘goggles’, were not adequate for use with nail guns.

Steele & Bray Limited, of Moore Street, Kingsley, Northampton, was fined a total of £6,500 and ordered to pay £898.20 in costs after pleading guilty to an offence under Regulation 4(1) of the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992.

 
Worker’s fall from scaffold leads to life-changing injuries

A scaffold firm was fined after a worker was seriously injured after falling nine metres. 

Bristol Magistrates’ Court heard how an employee of Bristol-based Tubular Access Scaffolds Limited was dismantling a scaffold structure when he fell, causing life-changing head injuries. 

An investigation by the HSE into the incident, which occurred on 23 July 2013, at Berkley Crescent, Clifton, found that there was no evidence of preventative measures taken by the company before the incident. 

Tubular Access Scaffolds Limited, of Duckmoor Road, Ashton, was fined a total of £26,250, after pleading guilty to offences under Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. 

 

 

 

Health & Safety in the news this week: 

New sentencing guidelines for Health & Safety offences 

The sentencing council last week published definitive guidelines for the sentencing of health and safety offences.

These guidelines will have an impact on the fines construction companies will face if found guilty of such offences.

The new guidelines will apply to all health and safety cases sentenced after 1 February 2016, regardless as to when the offence was committed.

Under the new guidelines a court will need to consider the following criteria when deciding upon the correct level of fine:

• the harm the offence caused, with multiple deaths being the most serious harm;
• the culpability of the offender, ranging from a mere oversight to a deliberate act or omission;
• the size of the offender, measured by reference to financial turnover.

Courts will be encouraged to ensure that fines are sufficiently substantial to have real economic impact.  This is intended to bring home to both shareholders and management the need to provide a safe working environment.

The starting point for the fines is linked to the organisation's annual turnover, not profits

The most serious breach leading to a fatality (not corporate manslaughter) attracts a starting point of £4m, with a range from £2.6m to £10m, for a large company (turnover in excess of £50m). For a micro company (turnover under £2m) it will lead to a starting point of £250,000 with a range from £150,000 to £450,000. For a very large company, or in an exceptional case, a judge can impose punishments outside the recommended range.

The guidelines will also apply to individuals prosecuted for health and safety offences.

You can do the following:

• Review your existing health & safety policies and procedures ensuring the systems are robust.
• Ensure a prominent profile for health & safety risks in the corporate risk registers.
• Boards must satisfy themselves that health & safety is embedded in the organisation and is not just a function of the health & safety team.
• Audits must be fit for purpose and not a tick box exercise.
• Investigations of incidents must be thorough with consideration given to invoking litigation privilege.

CHAS announces the launch of Electronic application system (Eforms)

Eforms is an electronic application system which allows submission of a CHAS Assessment with supporting documentation online.

The main benefits of the Eforms system are:

• New efficient online process
• Upload documentation electronically
• Save and retrieve your application at anytime
• An electronic certificate will be emailed instantaneously upon successful completion of your assessment. (A hard copy will be posted within 10 working days)
• Instant email alerts throughout your application process from start to completion
• No more large/multiple emails
• Save on unnecessary trips to the post office & postage costs
• Eforms uses a secure (3d secure Visa verified) online card payment system

Go to http://www.chas.co.uk/ for more information.

HSE Prosecutions round-up:

Firms sentenced after construction death

Two associate companies have been fined after the death of a worker in London, killed when concrete joists fell on him.

Electrician John Walker, who worked for 777 Environmental Limited, died while working on a demolition site on Walworth Road, Elephant and Castle, where the Strata Building now sits.

In August 2007, John Walker was working on an area of the site near to remote controlled demolition machines.  Whilst breaking through a structural beam, the machines dislodged several concrete joists which struck him and he died at the scene.

The HSE prosecuted after it found the principal contractor, 777 Demolition and Haulage Co Ltd, and subcontractor, and also sister firm, 777 Environmental, failed to properly plan, manage and monitor the demolition of the structure.

Southwark Crown Court was told the companies failed to prepare or implement an effective and safe system of work for the demolition, which ultimately allowed for an uncontrolled collapse to take place.

The HSE explained that as the principal contractor, it was the duty of 777 Demolition and Haulage Co. Limited to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of those not only in its employment, but affected by its work on site.

777 Environmental Limited was the subcontractor and employer of Mr Walker, and was brought in to undertake the demolition of the building. Its failure to properly investigate the nature of the structure as demolition proceeded led to the uncontrolled collapse. By not having implemented robust exclusion zones this sadly allowed a wholly foreseeable risk to have fatal consequences. It admitted breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, at an earlier hearing and was fined £90,000.

777 Demolition and Haulage Co. Limited of Beddington Lane, Croydon, Surrey denied the charges but was found guilty, after a trial, of breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and fined £125,000.

Costs of £167, 857 were awarded to HSE.

 Skip company and director fined after worker killed in excavator fall

Waste management firm South Coast Skips Ltd and its owner have been prosecuted after one worker died and another was left seriously injured when they fell from the bucket of an excavator.

Lindsay Campbell, a 66-year-old father of ten from Waterlooville in Hampshire, was killed when the bucket of an excavator he was working in tipped causing him to fall nine metres to the ground. Mr Campbell’s colleague, who was in the bucket alongside him also fell and suffered severe leg injuries in the incident on 25 July 2012 at the company’s site at the Rudford Industrial estate in Arundel.

Chichester Crown Court heard that Lindsay Campbell had carried on working for Kevin Hoare, a director of South Coast Skips despite recently retiring. On the day of the incident he was running an electric cable to power a waste screening machine known as a ‘trommel’.

Mr Campbell decided to run the cable along a previously used route in the rafters of the shed and asked to be lifted in the bucket of an excavator.  The excavator driver lifted both Mr Campbell and an agency worker and whilst positioning the cable the hydraulic pressure dropped causing the bucket to tip forward. Both men fell nine metres to the concrete floor.

The court also heard that the bucket of an excavator is not designed to lift people yet nobody on site attempted to stop this activity taking place.

South Coast Skips Ltd of Rudford Industrial Estate, Ford, Arundel pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act, 1974 (HASWA,1974) was fined £65,000 and ordered to pay costs of £25,000.

Mr Kevin Hoare, 65, of Fareham, Hampshire pleaded guilty to section 37 of HASWA, 1974 and was given a 12 month custodial sentence suspended for 18 months.

Scaffold collapse lands three companies in Court

Three companies working on construction of residential apartments have been sentenced after workers narrowly escaped injury when a huge scaffold collapsed in the River Brain.

The work was being undertaken at the Former Riverside Centre, in Braintree, Essex when on 1 July 2014 the scaffold, which was forty metres in length and five lifts high, collapsed into the river.

The HSE investigated the incident and charged three firms with various breaches of law; Principal Contractor Parkland Developments Ltd, scaffolding contractor SC Cousins Scaffolding Ltd and CDM co-ordinator Haze and Safety Ltd.

The court heard the HSE’s investigation found numerous failings on site;

·         The CDM co-ordinator had failed to provide suitable and sufficient advice to the client (Parkland Developments Ltd) or ensure that the arrangements were being implemented on site.

·         The Principal Contractor (Parkland Developments Ltd) failed to implement the construction phase plan or ensure that they planned and managed or monitored the scaffolding works.

·         The scaffolding contractor failed to plan the work or design the scaffold. They also failed to send trained and competent workers to site. In the weeks prior to the collapse, a scaffolding labourer was acting as the supervisor and overseeing trainee scaffolders in erecting, altering and inspecting the scaffold.

·         Not one of the duty holders had identified there was no design for the scaffold.

HSE served a Prohibition Notice following the collapse, stopping all further work until an adequate design had been drawn up.

Following the collapse, SC Cousins continued to send untrained scaffolders to site and Parkland Developments allowed them to adapt the scaffold. Parkland also continued to allow site labourers to adapt scaffolding, even providing the tools to do so.

On Monday 2 November 2015, the court was told Parkland Developments Ltd had received an inspection from HSE at the same site several months prior to the collapse where five enforcement notices were issued for other management failings. A Notification of Contravention was also issued on CDM co-ordinator Haze and Safety Ltd for failing to provide suitable and sufficient advice to the client.

SC Cousins Scaffolding Ltd had also received an inspection from HSE at a different site five weeks before the collapse and had been informed of the design requirements for scaffolding.

Parkland Developments Ltd of Witham Road, Black Notley pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 22(1)(a) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. They were fined £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,893.

S C Cousins Scaffolding Ltd of Church St, Billericay pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 4(1)(a), 5 and 8(b) of the Work at Height Regulations. They were fined a total of £15,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,981.

Haze and Safety Ltd of Meadowside, Braintree pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations Regulation 20(1)(a) & (b) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. They were fined a total of £5,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,981.

Ladder fall leads to court for sub-contractor

A Nottingham sub-contractor has been prosecuted after a worker was injured when he fell from an unsafe ladder.

Lincoln Crown Court heard Charanjit Singh had been employed by Hardev Gutheran Singh to carry out refurbishment work at a site in Ark Road, North Somercotes, Louth.

On 11 May 2013, Charanjit Singh, 57, was painting metal roof struts more than three metres high when the ladder he was working on gave way. He hit the concrete floor below, dislocating his shoulder and shattering his knee.

He spent ten days in hospital and had to have a knee replacement. He has been unable to work since as he still suffers discomfort and has mobility problems.

A HSE investigation found the aluminium ladder had been poorly maintained. A non-slip foot was missing and another was damaged, as was one of the rungs.

On the 6th November 2015, Hardev Gutheran Singh, 32, of Park Street, Lenton, Nottingham, was ordered to complete 180 hours community service after being found guilty of breaching regulation 7(2) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and regulation 5(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.