Health and Safety Failings – Unguarded machine leads to £7k fine

Unguarded machine leads to £7k fine

Key Facts:

• An incident involving an unguarded machine left an employee with serious injuries to his hand.
• The resulting HSE investigation found that the dangerous nip point of the machine had been left totally unguarded.
• The company were fined a total of £7,000 and costs of £2909.25.

The Case:

An investigation was launched into a Southampton food business after an employee suffered serious injuries as a result of unsafe machinery work.

On 17 March 2014, an employee was cleaning an unguarded machine when his left hand was pulled into the running nip of a conveyor belt. Unable to reach the emergency stop point, a colleague had to stop the machine running so the man could be released.

The worker required hospitable treatment, spending seven days in hospital to undergo two operations. He was unable to return to work for several months. He now has limited use of his hand and requires ongoing physiotherapy.

The resulting HSE investigation found that the dangerous nip point of the machine had been left totally unguarded. The company had previously been prosecuted back in 2001 after a further incident involving poorly-guarded machinery.

The case was heard at Southampton Magistrates’ Court on 31 March 2015 where the company pleaded guilty to two breaches of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and a single breach of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. They were fined a total of £7,000 and costs of £2909.25.

What the HSE inspector had to say:

Speaking after the hearing the HSE Inspector Kate Clark stated that:

“Andrew House suffered an awful injury to his hand which left him unable to use it for months. It was debilitating and traumatic. 

The fact is that it need not have happened at all. Faccenda Foods should have carried out a proper assessment of the risks involved in operating the machine. That would have identified the safeguards and controls and that were needed and the firm would have been able to put those measures in place. 

The risk to workers of becoming trapped in moving machinery is well-known in the industry and should not be under-estimated, as these incidents account for hundreds of injuries each year, and even deaths. 

If the guards that Faccenda installed after Mr House’s injury had been there at the time, it is extremely unlikely he would have become trapped.”  

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 which are effective – (a) to 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 16(1) of the same Regulations states:

Every employer shall ensure that, where appropriate, work equipment is provided with one or more readily accessible emergency stop controls unless it is not necessary by reason of the nature of the hazards and the time taken for the work equipment to come to a complete stop as a result of the action of any control provided by virtue of regulation 15(1). 

Regulation 3(1)(a) 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. 

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.