Health and Safety Failings – Three construction firms fined after conveyor section crushes worker

Three construction firms fined after conveyor section crushes worker

Key Facts:

• Three construction firms fined for health and safety failings.
• A section of conveyor crushed a construction worker, who has since been unable to return to work due to his injuries.
• The fines levelled at the companies reached over £27,000 and over £5,000 in costs.

The Case: 

Three construction companies have been prosecuted after a worker was crushed by a falling section of conveyor on 14 February 2013.

The section of conveyor, weighing 4.5 tonnes, overturned during installation and trapped a 49-year-old employee. As a result of the incident, he suffered four cracked vertebrae, broken ribs, a punctured lung and a broken ankle. He has been unable to return to work since the incident.

As part of the conveyor installation, failure to correctly plan the removal of skates and jacks led to the conveyor beginning to swing, turning on its side and trapping the worker underneath.

Two Danish companies (who had joined together for the construction project) had subcontracted a third, UK based company to install the conveyor system amongst other things. Safety failings were identified in all three companies. The subcontracted company based in the UK had produced a plan and risk assessment for the work, but had considered the removal of the skates an issue. The document had been sent to the first Danish company for checking, but they also failed to notice the omission. The second Danish company, who were the principal contractors, failed to ensure the work was properly assessed and co-ordinated between the contractors on site.   The lifting operation using jacks wasn’t undertaken safely, and none of the three companies was managing or monitoring the work correctly.

The case was heard at Lincoln Magistrates’ Court on 12 March 2015. The subcontracted UK company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999; Regulation 8(1)(c) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998; and Regulation 13(2) of the Construction (Design and Management ) Regulations 2007. They were therefore fined £17,350 and costs of £1,710.

The first Danish company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 13(2) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007. They were fined £5,350 and costs of £1,710.

The main contractor – the second Danish company, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. They were fined £4,670 and costs of £1,710.

What the HSE inspector had to say:

Speaking after the hearing the HSE Inspector Martin Giles stated that:

“This was a large site with multiple contractors and up to 300 people working at any one time. Although there was a series of site rules set out in a construction phase plan, BWSC’s management of the site was poor as each of the main contractors ran their own areas of the site as they desired and were able to set additional rules. This led to different procedures being followed and a lack of control over temporary works.

The failure to ensure work was carried out safely on the slope was symptomatic of more general failures which were the responsibility of  principal contractor BWSC in setting the rules, procedures and checks needed to manage a large site. These failures put all the workers on site at risk.

BWE specified the use of skates for installing the conveyor system but removing them required adequate risk assessment. Although the company had read the assessment and method statement produced by Shaw Group it made no comment on it and did not approve it before it was implemented. BWE should have picked up on that document’s failures and asked Shaw Group to re-evaluate before work was allowed to begin.

Shaw Group UK Ltd’s risk assessment was flawed, and its management and monitoring of the task was not sufficient to identify potential problems and stop the work in the four days before Mr Doyle was hurt. The actual method of work followed by its employees was unsafe and led to Mr Doyle’s injuries when the load overturned.”

What the law states:

Regulation 3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 states

Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work; and the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking, for the purpose of identifying the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions and by Part II of the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997.

Regulation 8(1)(c) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 states:

Every employer shall ensure that every lifting operation involving lifting equipment is carried out in a safe manner.

Regulation 13(2) of the Construction (Design and Management ) Regulations 2007 states:

Every contractor shall plan, manage and monitor construction work carried out by him or under his control in a way which ensures that, so far as is reasonably practicable, it is carried out without risks to health and safety.

Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states:

It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.

Further information on construction safety 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.