Consultants Out and About

 

Jack saw some "proper lifting" being carried out in London last week!

 

Health and Safety in the news this week

A British fire chief says it's "highly unlikely" that three people still missing after part of a mothballed British power plant collapsed are alive.

Dave Etheridge, chief fire officer at Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue Service, said last Wednesday that rescue workers "have not picked up any signs of life" in the 30-foot (9-meter) high mound of rubble.

One person was confirmed dead and five others were hospitalized after the industrial accident on Tuesday 23^rd February at Didcot power station, 60 miles (100 kilometers) west of London. The facility is an old coal- and oil-fueled plant that has been closed since 2013 and is slated for demolition. The complex also houses a separate operating gas-powered plant.

Owner Npower said part of the old power station collapsed while a demolition contractor was working on it, sending a huge cloud of dust into the air.

Some 50 people were treated for dust inhalation at the scene. The fire service said no hazardous materials were found in the building.

Source: Daily Mail online

New CDM overhaul on the cards

The overhauled Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM) could face further change as part of a government initiative to cut red tape in the housebuilding sector.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and the Cabinet Office announced on 2 December that they will be reviewing all aspects of regulation in the industry.  However, they singled out the new version of CDM, saying the government is keen to look at how the sector is adapting to the changes.  They also wanted to hear if “any legislation derived from EU obligations is being implemented more strictly than required” and would consider wider health and safety regulation.

The consultation, which closed on 13^th January, invited all involved in building homes to submit evidence of legislation or enforcement that could be made “simpler, more cost effective, efficient, proportionate or consistent”.

CDM 2015 came into force in April and was the third iteration of the regulations originally enacted in 1994.  The amendments removed the CDM co-ordinator and created the principal designer role to oversee the pre-construction phase of projects involving two or more contractors.

A decision has not been made about whether the regulations will be supported by an approved code of practice.  The Construction Industry Advisory Committee, made up of HSE, union and business representatives, failed to reach an agreement when it met in November. 

The Conservative government entered office in May promising to substantially cut red tape.  The review forms part of the Cutting Red Tape review programme, which runs rolling reviews of regulation in different sectors.  “This review will give housebuilders and smaller construction businesses a powerful voice as part of our £10 billion deregulation drive”, said business secretary Sajid Javid.  “Where rules are too complicated, ineffective or poorly enforced, I want to hear about it and the government will take action.”

When CDM 2015 came into force, some commentators predicted it would not be the final set of regulations since a planned EU review of the law that underpins it, the Temporary or Mobile Construction Sites Direction, might require more revisions.

Source: www.healthandsafetyatwork.com

HSE consults on new strategy

·         Helping Great Britain Work Well will focus on six key themes
·         Better risk management “can help economy”

The HSE has launched a consultation on its new five-year strategy saying that Britain’s economy could grow if risks are better managed and health and safety performance improved.

The strategy, called Helping Great Britain Work Well, will be based around six themes.  The regulator is urging everyone involved in health and safety to have their say on what the strategy should achieve.

The themes are:

·         Promoting broader ownership of workplace health and safety
·         Highlighting and tackling the burden of work-related ill health
·         Supporting small firms
·         Simplifying risk management and helping business to grow
·         Anticipating and tackling the challenges of new technology and ways of working
·         Promoting the benefits of Britain’s world-class health and safety system.

HSE chair Judith Hackitt said: “We can be proud of the country’s record on work-related safety and health – it’s one of the best in the world.  Making it even better is the challenge, so that we can all continue to help Great Britain work well.  Getting risk management right is an enabler for productivity, innovation and growth, and is integral to business success as well as the wellbeing of workers.

More information is available on: www.hse.gov.uk/strategy

Source: www.iirsm.org

HSE prosecution round up:

Scaffolding firm in court after worker’s roof fall

Hemel Hempstead Scaffolding Limited has been fined after a worker suffered life changing injuries when he fell from the roof of a barn.

Stewart Thomas from Hemel Hempstead, 31 at the time of the incident, was carrying out scaffolding work in preparation for the installation of solar panels on a barn roof at Gaddesden Home Farm, Bridens Camp on Red Lion Lane on 25 July 2013.

St Albans Crown Court heard that father of one Mr Thomas was placing scaffold boards along the roof ridge when he fell through the fragile roof to the concrete floor eight metres below. He suffered multiple injuries to his head and neck including a brain stem injury, a punctured lung, broken ribs and a lacerated liver. Mr Thomas is now unable to talk, move or feed himself and requires residential care.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found Hemel Hempstead Scaffolding Limited had never provided a written method statement or risk assessment for this work. Critically there were no fall protection measures in place, and there was also no appropriate supervision of inexperienced and trainee scaffolders on the site.

Hemel Hempstead Scaffolding Limited of Seymour Crescent, Hemel Hempstead pleaded guilty to breaching section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act, 1974 and were fined £110,000 and ordered to pay £22,596 in costs.

Speaking after the hearing HSE Inspector Stephen Manley said: “The Company’s approach to health and safety was poor. They failed to properly and safely plan the work they were contracted to carry out and failed to supervise inexperienced young workers. The particular works would have been unfamiliar to the team and so the lack of thorough supervision was lamentable.

As a result of their failings a young father has been left being unable to communicate or look after himself and he will never be able to play with his young daughter”.

When working at height, there is a high likelihood of serious injury or death if safe procedures are not put in place and adequate steps taken to ensure they are followed”.

Company fined for failure to comply with improvement notices

A London based company who fabricate structural steel products has been fined for failure to maintain compliance with the law following prior HSE enforcement action.

Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard how William Fry Fabrications Limited failed to thoroughly examine two cranes used by the company, despite receiving both Improvement and Prohibition Notices on this issue for its cranes in 2011.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that between 2012 and 2015 the cranes had not been thoroughly examined at least every 12 months despite an absolute legal duty to do so.

William Fry Fabrications Limited, of Neasden Lane, London, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 9(3)(a) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998, and was fined £13,333 and ordered to pay full costs of £2,527.

Source: www.hse.gov.uk

HSE Health and Safety Myths Buster

Issue

A member of staff has been told that all visitors to the building where she works have to be shown the comprehensive asbestos register, even if they are only coming for a meeting and not doing any physical work.  For example a visitor attending a verbal meeting with the store manager has to sign to say they have seen it. The building is a retail outlet with back offices and does have managed asbestos in some areas but not all.  The enquirer would understand if the visitor was a contractor doing works to the building fabric, but felt this was over-the-top and wonder if the myth busters could confirm.

Panel decision

The serious health risks from exposure to asbestos are well known.  The Control of Asbestos Regulations (CAR) 2012 contain a duty to pass on information about asbestos to people liable to disturb it in the course of their work or visit. However, there is no reason why people visiting simply to attend a meeting would need to see this information.  New guidance published by the Retail Asbestos Working Group (RAWG), and supported by HSE, provides sensible, practical, advice on managing asbestos and working with asbestos containing materials in trading stores and shops. The guidance confirms that the measures described by the enquirer go beyond what is needed to manage the risk of exposure for visitors.

 

Health and Safety in the news this week

A construction worker was crushed to death when five tonnes of steel crashed down on top of him at a £2m riverside home in Weybridge.  The man was believed to have been killed when a crane operating at the building site dropped its load.

The tragedy took place at around 1.30pm on 15 February as a construction team neared completion of a renovation at Wey Meadows, and the man was pronounced dead at the scene.

The property, in a quiet area along the River Wey, was bought for around £900,000 by millionaire businessman Hugh Villiers, 63, who owns marketing agency CMCI Ltd.  For the past five years the two-bedroom property has been undergoing a transformation as part of a project to build a much larger house fitted with a cinema, health spa, swimming pool and jacuzzi.

A spokesman for Surrey Police said: "Officers attended Wey Meadows following reports that a man had died after being trapped under metal construction materials.  Police and other emergency services attended the location but the man was sadly declared dead at the scene.  Officers are working with the HSE to establish the circumstances surrounding the death."

A spokesman for the HSE confirmed: "We are aware of a fatal incident in Weybridge and are attending the site."

Andy Begg, watch commander at Walton fire station, said a crew had been called out to the property.  He said: "There was one male trapped under reinforcing wire mesh, which were about 5m by 3m each, each weighing 71 kilos.  The man had 18 sheets on top of him.  During the [crane] unloading process one of the attachments failed.  The load fell so it was hanging, but only supported by one attachment and sadly he was underneath," he said.

 

HSE prosecution round up:

Firm fined after fatality at waste recycling site

A scrap metal recycling company based in Sheffield has been fined for safety failings after a worker was killed when he was hit in the head by an exploding gas cylinder.

Sheffield Crown Court heard how Tony Johnson, aged 55, was working at the Walter Heselwood recycling site on 16 June 2009 when a pressurised gas cylinder was put through a shearing machine causing it to explode.  A large section of the cylinder hit Mr Johnson in the head causing fatal injuries.

An investigation by the HSE found a number of safety failures by Walter Heselwood Limited.  They had no effective health and safety management system in place and failed to adequately assess the risks involved with processing different types of scrap material.  The company also failed to put in place a range of measures to reduce the risks, for example by providing a blast wall.

Walter Heselwood Limited of Stevenson Road, Sheffield, pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined £120,000 with £40,000 costs.

Company fined after carrying out dangerous window installation work eight-metres above a West End street

A company which manufactured and installed windows has been fined £36,000 after carrying out work in the West End of London with no measures to prevent the workers falling eight metres and after dropping part of a window onto the public area below.

Westminster Magistrates’ Court heard Ideal Glazing (Euro) Ltd carried out window installation work at Aldford House, Park Street, London, between 19 and 20 January 2015 that put their workers and members of the public at risk of suffering serious injuries or a fatality.

The HSE carried out an investigation into the work after a member of the public provided photos of workers leaning out of window openings eight metres above the ground.  They also provided a video showing the workers dropping part of a window which fell to the ground and missed a nearby pedestrian.

The company had failed to provide equipment such as scaffolding which would have prevented the workers and window falling.  None of the workers had received any formal training and no one was appointed to supervise the work.

The risks associated with the work had not been sufficiently assessed.  The court heard the company had failed to invest in equipment for working at height and had a health and management system which relied entirely on the company’s managing director, Mr Rashinda Joshi, despite his lack of relevant training and experience.

The work at Aldford House was halted when HSE served a Prohibition Notice.  The court heard the company had previously been given advice by HSE in connection with work at height and that an audit by Ideal Glazing’s bank had previously identified a range of relevant health and safety failings.  The court heard that neither written warning was heeded by the firm.

Ideal Glazing (Euro) Ltd of 29, The Green, Southall, Middlesex, pleaded guilty to breaches of Regulation 6(3) and 10(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and was fined £36,000 and ordered to pay £1,386 in costs.

Scrap metal firm in court over worker’s severe forklift injuries

A scrap metal firm and its director have been sentenced after a Manchester worker suffered severe injuries to his left arm when it became stuck in a forklift truck.

The worker, aged 30, from Levenshulme remained trapped for over two hours while the emergency services tried to free his arm from the vehicle’s mast at Levenshulme Trading Estate, Printworks Lane on 8 November 2013. 

Ultimate Traders Ltd and company director Nasir Rashid were prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after it emerged he had been told to stand on the forks on the truck to help move scrap cars into the back of a shipping container. 

Manchester Crown Court heard that Mr Rashid, aged 36 from Greenford in London, had been driving the forklift truck and that the scrap cars were due to be exported to Pakistan where the metal would be sold. 

The worker suffered severe crush injuries when his arm became trapped and it took the combined effort of three fire crews, a specialist major rescue unit, two air ambulances, a medical team from Manchester Royal Infirmary and three ambulance crews to rescue him. 

He sustained nerve damage to his left arm which makes it difficult for him to grip or lift items, and was in hospital for nearly two months.  He still needs to visit Manchester Royal Infirmary for treatment and has been unable to return to work due to the extent of his injuries. 

The court was told the company failed to report the incident to HSE for nearly three months, despite being told on several occasions that this was a legal requirement.

Nasir Rashid, of Bracewell Avenue in Greenford, was sentenced to six months imprisonment suspended for 18 months and ordered to pay costs of £750 after pleading guilty to a breach of Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

Ultimate Traders Ltd, of Bridgewater Road in Wembley, was given a nominal fine of £2 after discussion concerning the company’s finances.  The firm pleaded guilty to breaches of Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and Regulation 4 (2) of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013. 

Source: www.hse.gov.uk

HSE Health and Safety Myths Buster

Nightclub refused to serve salt and lemon with Tequila shots

Issue

A bar manager refused to serve salt and lemon with Tequila shots to customers in a nightclub due to health and safety.

Panel opinion

There is no workplace health and safety legislation that prohibits the service of salt and lemon with tequila.  This looks like a case of quoting an easy excuse – possibly to cover up poor customer service.  The bar should simply serve the drink in the traditional way as requested, and not misuse health and safety legislation in this way.

 

 

Welcome to our new feature:

RHSS Consultants out and about…snapping interesting sights from their weekly travels.

This week, Rob noticed this rubbish storage facility on a construction site!

 

 

Health and Safety in the news this week

New sentencing guidelines

The new sentencing guidelines for health & safety offences are in force from 1 February 2016.  They were intended to increase the level of fines, particularly for larger organisations.  However, unintended consequences of the way punishments are now calculated mean that judges will be forced to hand out very much greater fines than expected and send many more directors, managers and junior employees to jail for breaching health & safety laws.

The Four Inflations

For most health and safety breaches, the criminal law laid down by Parliament does not set an upper limit to the size of the fine, so it is left to judges and magistrates in Court to decide how the fine should ‘fit the crime’.  To help the Court set a fair, transparent and consistent tariff, the eminent judges and lawyers on the Sentencing Council have created a set of guidelines now coming into force.

Close inspection of the new sentencing guidelines shows that four inflationary factors are going to increase radically the level of fines, yet only one of these factors was intended.  Similarly, the threshold for imprisonment will be reached very much more easily than before.  Let’s look briefly at the four inflationary factors:

First Inflation

The sentencing guidelines introduce a structured approach that the court must follow.  This involves plugging ‘culpability’, ‘likelihood’ and ‘harm’ factors into a series of tables to reach recommended starting point fines, as well as ranges of fines above and below the starting points.  Similarly for imprisonment of individuals, the tables stipulate ranges of prison sentences above and below various starting points.

These tables were calculated by reviewing past sentences and then, particularly for larger companies, increasing the levels of fines.  This first inflation was intended.  It was designed to accommodate the Court of Appeal’s repeated view that health and safety fines have generally been too low and need to be increased sufficiently to send a message to directors and shareholders.  Indeed, the Court of Appeal envisages fines exceeding £100 million for the worst health and safety breaches by the largest companies.

But the Court of Appeal has not recommended massive increases across the board, even for less serious offences by smaller companies and by individuals.  Yet this will be the effect of the next three inflations.

Second Inflation

The sentencing guidelines switch from a mainly outcome based approach (what was the seriousness of the injury) to a risk based approach (how serious was the harm that was risked).  There are justifiable reasons for this switch but its inflationary effect on sentences was not factored into the calculations.  How does this second inflation work?

Suppose an object falls from a crane and crushes someone’s toes.  Traditionally, that would be prosecuted and sentenced very much more leniently than if the same object had hit someone’s head and caused a fatality.  Under the new risk based approach, the toe injury is seen as having involved a high risk of death or disability and is plugged into the computation at the level calculated for a fatality.

The majority of non-fatal incidents could have been more serious, so these will be inflated up to the level of fine corresponding to that more serious injury.

Third Inflation

If the offence exposed not just one but a number of people to the risk of harm, the Court is directed to ramp the punishment up to the next level.  As a seasoned health and safety defence lawyer, I struggle to think of a case where the breach only exposed one person to a risk of harm.  For example, if other people could have been hit by the object falling from the crane, this third inflation will apply.

Fourth Inflation

Finally, if there was actual harm (unless more minor than could be expected), the Court is also directed to ramp the punishment up to the next level.  Since most prosecutions arise after someone has been injured, this fourth inflation will almost always apply.

Summary

The combined effect of these last three unintended inflations will mean that criminal sentences will tend to converge at the higher end of a scale that has already been substantially increased by the first intended inflation.  The Court is given some discretion but not enough to depart materially from the stipulated calculations.

For example, it is going to be difficult for an individual convicted offender to escape a jail sentence if he or she was aware of a risk of being in breach, nobody suffered an injury but several people were exposed to a ‘medium’ likelihood of death or disability.  This is a very significant reduction in the threshold for imprisonment for health and safety offences. 

It has never been more important to bring the importance of health and safety to the attention of board members and senior executives.

Source: www.shponline.co.uk

 

HSE prosecution round up:

Major construction firm fined £1million after death of worker

Construction firm Balfour Beatty has been fined after a worker lost his life whilst repairing a central reservation barrier damaged in a road traffic collision.

Canterbury Crown Court heard how, on 1 October 2012, a team was sent out by Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Limited, a subsidiary of Balfour Beatty PLC, to install temporary traffic management in order to repair barriers on the A2 at the location of a collision site.

The crew were trying to remove the footings of a post that had snapped off using a lorry mounted crane. The lorry mounted crane slipped from the concrete footing, and swung back towards the barrier, hitting the worker on the head. Larry Newman, aged 37, sustained severe head injuries and was pronounced dead at the scene.

Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Limited, of Churchill Place, Canary Wharf, London, was fined a total of £1million, and ordered to pay £14,977 in costs after pleading guilty to offences under Section 2(1) and Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Andrew Cousins said: “This was an entirely preventable incident that could have been averted by simply creating and implementing a safe system of work. If a suitably sized excavator had been used to remove the footing mechanically it would have prevented this tragic loss of life completely.

“Employers have a responsibility to create safe systems of work for hazardous activities that their workers may be undertaking. The workers should be trained in safe systems of working and adequately supervised. Safety needs to be proactively managed and not just left to chance”. 

Firm fined for safety failings after worker fell four metres from scaffolding

A scaffolding company has been fined after a worker fell over four metres suffering severe injuries.

Colchester Magistrates’ Court heard how a 39 year old worker fell from the second lift of a scaffold while it was being dismantled. Mr Hemphill (39 years old) fell approximately 5m before striking the ground.  Mr Hemphill collided with the scaffolding twice before finally hitting the ground below.

He sustained nine broken ribs, a punctured lung, fractured skull and a fractured spleen. He spent five days in hospital and at the time of the accident was expected to have at least 3 to 4 months off work.

An investigation by the HSE into the incident which occurred on 23 February 2015 found that there were no guard rails on the area from where Mr Hemphill was working and he was not provided with a harness and lanyard to clip on with. As a result there was nothing to stop him from falling.

SP Scaffolding (East Anglia) Limited of Gosbecks Road, Colchester, Essex pleaded guilty to breaching Work at height Regulations 2005, regulation 6(3) and were fined £8,000 with costs of £3,003. 

Worker killed whilst assisting a reversing lorry

A company has been fined for safety failings after the death of an employee.

Mold Crown Court heard how Philip Ledward, aged 62, an employee of Arkenfield Stable Hire Limited (ASHL), was assisting one of the company’s lorry drivers when he was struck by a passing car and received fatal injuries.

An investigation by the HSE into the incident, which occurred in November 2011, at Boundary Garage, Ellesmere Road, Bronington, found that there was no safe system of work in place for controlling risks from workplace transport.

Arkenfield Stable Hire Limited, of Birch House, Back Lane, Coton, Whitchurch, was fined a total of £7,500 and ordered to pay costs of £5,000 after pleading guilty to an offence under Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. 

Haulage firm sentenced after HGV crushes worker to death

A haulage firm has been ordered to pay £90,000 in fines and costs after an employee was crushed to death by a runaway lorry.

Tony Schulze had been trying to connect a cab to a lorry trailer when the incident happened at Freight First Ltd’s premises on the Astmoor Industrial Estate on Goddard Road on 22 January 2011.

The company was prosecuted by the HSE after an investigation found the 49-year-old from Runcorn did not normally drive articulated vehicles, had not received training on coupling lorries, and there was no written procedure for the work.

Liverpool Crown Court heard that Mr Schulze had been working at the site at the weekend, and had been asked to line up the trailers in the company’s small yard so they could be used for deliveries and pick-ups on the Monday morning.

When Mr Schulze released the brakes on the trailer, it began to roll forwards on the sloping yard. He ran down the side of the trailer, in front on the cab and attempted to jump into the open door but the HGV struck another vehicle in the yard, crushing him between the door and cab frame.

Mr Schulze’s colleagues tried to rescue him before the emergency services arrived, but he died at the scene.

The HSE’s investigation found there was not a safe system of work for the coupling and uncoupling of vehicles, and that the handbrake in the cab had not been applied.

Although Freight First Ltd had prepared a general risk assessment in May 2010, it did not deal with the task of connecting cabs to trailers, or identify the risk of runaway vehicles.

The court was told that an external health and safety adviser had highlighted the lack of a risk assessment in December 2010 – a month before Mr Schulze’s death – but no action was taken.

Freight First Ltd, of Whitehouse Industrial Estate, Aston Fields Road, Preston Brook, Runcorn, was fined £90,000 and ordered to pay £67,500 in prosecution costs after being found guilty of a breach of Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. 

Source: www.hse.gov.uk