Health and Safety Failings – Manufacturer prosecuted for machinery safety failings

Manufacturer prosecuted for machinery safety failings

Key Facts:

• A manufacturing company were prosecuted after a worker’s gloved hand became entangled in moving machinery.
• The worker suffered multiple injuries to his wrist and fingers.
• As a result, the company was fined a total of £4,000.

The Case:

An investigation was launched into the safety failings of a manufacturing firm after a worker’s arm became caught in machinery at a Glasgow factory.

The 43-year-old man was working with a colleague to clean a conveyor machine on the day of the incident, 30 August 2012. His colleague had gone to restart the conveyor to realign the belt when the employee noticed some mix they had missed cleaning off the conveyor. He attempted to scrape it off with his gloved right hand, but his glove became caught in the machinery.

He suffered compound wrist fracture and tendon damage to two fingers. He required surgery to insert a metal plate in his wrist which has left him weakened. He continues to suffer from pain in his wrist and fingers.

An HSE investigation identified a number of safety failings within the organisation. The in-running nip-point the worker’s glove became entangled in had not been identified as a potential hazard. As a result there were no control measures, such as safeguards, in place.

Following the incident a fixed guard was installed on the machinery to prevent future incidents.

The case was heard at Glasgow Sheriff Court on 26 March 2015, where the company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) and (2) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. They were fined a total of £4,000.

What the HSE inspector had to say:

Speaking after the hearing the HSE Inspector Callum MacDonald stated that:

“This was an entirely avoidable incident. The dangers of nip points, or the gaps between a moving belt and a stationary part of a machine, are well-known.

Promat Glasgow Limited should have carried out a full assessment of the risks to workers for all the tasks involved in the production of the insulation boards. That would have identified the hazards in the press area and the right action, such as introducing guards, could have been added as necessary.

As a result of the company’s failings, Mr Blackwood suffered injuries to his right arm which still cause him problems.”

What the law states:

Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 states:

Every employer shall ensure that measures are taken to (a) prevent access to any dangerous part of machinery or to any rotating stock-bar; or (b) to stop the movement of any dangerous part of machinery or rotating stock-bar before any part of a person enters a danger zone.

Regulation 11(2) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 states:

The measures required by paragraph (1) shall consist of: (a) the provision of fixed guards enclosing every dangerous part or rotating stock-bar where and to the extent that it is practicable to do so, but where or to the extent that it is not, then; (b) the provision of other guards or protection devices where and to the extent that it is practicable to do so, but where or to the extent that it is not, then; (c) the provision of jigs, holders, push-sticks or similar protection appliances used in conjunction with the machinery where and to the extent that it is practicable to do so, but where or to the extent that it is not, then; (d) the provision of information, instruction, training and supervision.

Further information on work equipment and machinery can be found here.

Find details of our safety training courses here

Follow us on twitter: @safety_matters

Don’t hesitate to get in touch if we can help you find a solution to your safety matters.