Prosecutions
Redditch Magistrates' Court heard how on 29 October 2008, an employee of company A was instructed to work for a neighbouring firm, company B. Both companies manufacture products for absorbing chemical and oil spillages and leaks.
The worker, who does not want to be named, was operating a 'carding' machine, which forces polypropylene fibres into a nylon sock used to absorb chemical and oil spills.
Fibres became attached to the teeth of the machine's rollers and as the employee reached in to remove them, his right hand became trapped in the running nip between the two rotating rollers, sustaining severe injuries.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found there were no measures taken by company B to guard the machine. The company should have followed the long-standing guidance which explains the carding machine should have been guarded by a perimeter fence with interlocked guards to prevent access to the machine while it was running.
The court was told company A did not make a risk assessment to identify hazards its employee may be exposed to when working on behalf of company B. Once any potential hazards had been identified by the risk assessment, company A should have addressed them with adequate safety measures.
Company A and company B share directors and operate from adjoining premises in Bromsgrove.
Company A pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £8,000 costs.
Company B pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The company was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £8,000 costs.
After the hearing, a HSE inspector said:
"This incident was entirely preventable and could have resulted in the loss of the man's hand.
"The dangers of using machines without suitable guarding are well known and long-established, specifically guidance on the use of carding machines has been available for many years. Yet neither company identified this machine as hazardous and continued to allow employees to operate it. In so doing, they clearly failed to ensure the safety of their employees."