Two contractors have been fined after a worker suffers a fatal injury following a fragile roof fall during construction work.

Wolverhampton Crown Court heard how in September 2015, at the Norton Aluminium foundry site in Norton Canes, a scaffold company employee was fatally injured after falling approximately eleven and a half metres through a fragile roof. The employee was working on the corrugated asbestos cement roof to move and fit temporary scaffold guardrails as part of a larger roof refurbishment project at the site.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Stephen John Brennan, trading as SB Scaffolding, failed to ensure the health and safety of his employees in relation to the work taking place on the fragile roof at the site. The investigation also found that Sandwell Roofing Limited, a contractor in overall control of the roof refurbishment project, failed to ensure that people not in its employment were not exposed to risks arising from work on the fragile roof.

Stephen John Brennan pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment suspended for two years, 180 hours of unpaid community service and ordered to pay costs of £14,000.

Sandwell Roofing Limited of New Wood Farm Stourton, Stourbridge, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £41,125 and ordered to pay costs of £33,000.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Andrew Bowker said:

Falls through fragile roof materials remain one of the most common causes of work-related fatalities during construction work. These risks are well known, and the required control measures well documented in both HSE and industry guidance. This was a tragic and wholly avoidable accident that led to the death of a young man. This death could easily have been prevented if suitable safe systems of work had been in place.

The post (Yet another) fatal injury arsing from a fall from height appeared first on LRB.

The fatal incident

On 10 December 2014 a worker (BE) fell from the roof of a metal structure he was helping to dismantle in Ramsbottom, Bury. He suffered catastrophic head injuries and died hours later at Salford Royal Hospital. At the time of the fall, BE was working for SR and RJ Brown.

Greater Manchester Police, which led the investigation alongside the HSE, found that no safeguards had been put in place to prevent the fall, such as harnesses, netting or a fall restraint system. Scaffolding was not used and a full risk assessment was not completed. It was reported in the Manchester Evening News that RJ Brown composed a ‘grossly inadequate’ risk assessment before the job which he did not show to anyone. After BE was rushed to hospital he then typed up another risk assessment, which should have been done beforehand.

Another employee was spared jail after he followed orders to bring safety harnesses to the site after his colleague had fallen in an attempt to conceal what had happened. His four-month sentence for perverting the course of justice, which he admitted, was suspended for two years.

More construction failures – directors jailed. A groundworks company, MA Excavations Ltd, appointed SR and RJ Brown Ltd to undertake the work. MA, director at MA Excavations Ltd, said he believed that SR and RJ Brown Ltd were ‘competent’ and could complete the job safely, but the court heard he did not check their qualifications. MA pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act and was fined £150,000. A director of this company was sentenced to 12 months in prison for failing to ensure the safety of others at work and failing to ensure that the work was planned and managed.

How Can a Construction Health and Safety Consultant Help in Health and Safety in Construction Sector?

Need help understanding your responsibilities?

• We can help you demystify and understand what steps you need to take.
• Get in touch and start a conversation with us today .

Looking for construction health and safety courses? We can deliver

• Training at your site
• Training from our offices
• Online e-learning.
• Get in touch to discuss your training needs.

The post Construction failures – directors jailed appeared first on LRB.

The HSE investigation found that DGS (Director of Stead Construction Services (SCS)) had failed to ensure that waste material was burned safely. In May 2015, the 17-year-old worker (BR) was instructed to stand on top of a skip and to pour a drum of flammable thinners onto the burning waste to aid the burning process. The HSE found that the thinners ignited and created a fireball, which blew BR from the skip, inflicting substantial burns to his arms and legs. Following the incident, DGS did not give the worker first aid, nor did he send him to the hospital. Further to this, he ignored a legal requirement to inform the HSE of the accident, which was only reported later by a third party.

RGS did not co-operate with the HSE investigation and argued SCS had closed and was no longer able to trade. SCS and a second construction company, Quality Builders (Pontypridd) are listed at Companies House as being dissolved. However, investigating officers found that Stead was listed as being director of a third company, DS Quality Construction Services, which is still actively trading.

The case was first heard at Merthyr Tydfil Magistrates’ Court in January 2017 where Stead made an early guilty plea to breaching section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act and section 4(1) of the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 (RIDDOR). It was passed for sentencing at Cardiff Crown Court on 6 February 2017, where Judge Jeremy Jenkins took into account the fact that neither BR nor another worker present had received any training. He also noted that RGS’s employer’s liability insurance had lapsed and had not been renewed and that the effect of the injuries on the young worker had been profound. Judge Jenkins said: “The fact that you didn’t phone for an ambulance was unforgivable”.

He determined that Stead’s culpability was very high, and the harm fell in Category 2 (of the new Sentencing Guidelines) as the incident resulted in “physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term effect on the sufferer’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities”.

Judge Jenkins imposed a 32-week prison sentence, which took into account RGS’s early guilty plea. Jail for Director – RGS was taken into immediate custody to serve his sentence concurrently with half served on release under licence. The judge also disqualified him from being a company director for seven years. No compensation or costs were awarded but RGS was required to pay a £140 victim surcharge.

The post Jail for Director – following serious fire injury to worker appeared first on LRB.

Lone worker death – A manufacturing company based in Hemel Hampstead has been fined £1,000,000 (one million pounds) after a worker (who was on his own) was crushed to death by falling machinery.

CR (aged 48) from Lincolnshire, was involved in moving a large CNC milling machine within the company’s Grantham factory on 30 April 2015. During this operation the CNC machine overturned, crushing him fatally. The machine had been lifted using jacks and placed onto skates to give CR access to use an angle grinder to cut and remove the bolts that had secured it to the floor. CR was working alone at the time of the incident.

Lincoln Magistrates Court heard how Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Ltd had not ensured that workers who were tasked with lifting and moving the machine were sufficiently trained and had the right experience and training for carrying out such a potentially dangerous activity. During its investigation, the HSE found that the work was not properly planned. The centre of gravity of the machine had not been properly assessed and taken into account before the move took place. This resulted in an unsafe system of work being used for the job, with fatal consequences.

Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Ltd, Maylands Avenue, Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire pleaded guilty to breaching Reg 3(1) of Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. They were fined £1million for breaching Section 2, with full costs £6,311 and a victim surcharge of £120.

HSE Inspector Martin Giles said:

“CR’s death was entirely preventable. Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Ltd had already tried unsuccessfully to lift the machine using a fork lift truck but instead of learning from this failure they carried on. Their ad hoc approach to managing dangerous tasks resulted in one of their workers losing his life.

“All companies can learn from this incident and make sure they have properly risk assessed the situation before they start and that they have trained staff with the right type of experience to carry out the task in hand safely. Taking an extra few minutes to properly think through a problem could save a worker’s life.”

The post Lone worker death – £1 Million fine appeared first on LRB.

Key Facts:

• An HSE investigation was launched after an employee was dragged under a forklift truck’s rear wheel.
• The employee sustained serious injuries as a result of the accident. Several key safety failings were identified in the ensuing HSE investigation.
• The firm and its director were prosecuted, being ordered to pay over £16,000.

The Case:

An HSE investigation was launched into a Liverpool skip hire firm, and it’s director, after an employee was dragged under a forklift truck’s wheel.

The incident, which took place in April 2013, saw an employee struck by a forklift truck as it was reversing before being pulled under the rear wheel of the truck. He sustained serious, life changing injuries which included broken ribs, a fractured pelvis, a punctured lung, and severe crush injuries to his chest and leg. His spleen was also removed as a result of the accident.

The ensuing HSE investigation found that there was no adequate safe system of work in place on the site, nor a risk assessment that would have identified the necessity of keeping pedestrians and vehicles apart. The forklift truck involved in the incident did not have an audible siren or beacon to alert nearby workers that it was reversing. There were also no wing mirrors, and the rear window of the machine was dirty which further reduced the drivers ability to see. The vehicle had not been subjected to examination by a competent person within the last year, as required by the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998.

The case was heard at South Sefton Magistrates’ Court in May 2015 where the firm pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. They were fined £14,000, and ordered to pay costs of £1791.50 and a victim surcharge of £120.

The company’s director was also prosecuted after pleading guilty to breaching Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. She was fined £1,000, and ordered to pay costs of £387.50 and a victim surcharge of £120.

Find out more about safe work with machinery and workplace transport here >>

What The Law States:

Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states:

“It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.”

Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states:

“Where an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”

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.

The post Forklift Truck Accident Leads To Prosecution | Health & Safety appeared first on LRB.

Key Facts:

• Director prosecuted after a self-employed worker fell to his death from the roof of a South Devon animal crematorium.
• A number of health and safety failings were identified that could have prevented the fatal fall.
• The director prosecuted for breaching health and safety regulations and fined £45,000 plus costs of £8,180.

The Case:

The owner of a South Devon animal crematorium has been prosecuted after a self-employed worker died whilst undertaking roof repair work in an incident on 6 September 2013.

On the of the fatal incident, the 49-year-old worker was working to repair holes in a cement fibre roof at the crematorium, with the help of an employee of the company. He was lying on the fragile roof and reaching for a drill when the roof gave way and he fell 6.6m to the ground below. He hit a wooden pallet and metal frame before hitting the ground in the fatal fall. The pallet had been placed there with the intention of breaking any falls, but was entirely inadequate and unsuitable for the job.

The subsequent HSE investigation found that neither of the two men undertaking the work had any training or expertise in carrying out work at height. There was no proper equipment in place to prevent or lessen the effects of the falls such as crawling boards, work platforms, harnesses or lanyards. The workers were permitted to walk on the roof, despite a sign on the building saying ‘Danger – Fragile Roof’. No risk assessment or method statement had been prepared for the work. The employer had also failed to identify whether or not the contracted worker was competent to carry out roof work, and knew that their employee had no qualifications for the work.

The case was heard at Exeter Crown Court on 16 April 201, where the director pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3 (1) and Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The director prosecuted was fined a total of £45,000 plus costs of £8,180. 

What the HSE inspector had to say:

Speaking after the hearing the HSE Inspector Helena Allum stated that:

“Mr Hoskin’s tragic death revealed a catalogue of serious safety failings with this job. 

Employers must make sure people they ask to do work for them have the right training and experience for the job and are provided with the equipment to do it safely. Activities must be properly assessed and planned in advance. 

Falls from height are one of the most common causes of fatalities at work and yet simple procedures and planning could save many lives.” 

What the law states:

Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states:

“It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.” 

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 safe work at height 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.

The post Health and Safety Failings – Director prosecuted after contractor suffers fatal fall appeared first on LRB.

There are many things that might drive companies to provide good health and safety in the workplace. In this article, we look at some of the main Health and Safety driving forces.

By and large, health and safety drivers can be put into three categories:

• Legal
• Financial
• Moral

Legal Driving Forces

Legal drivers for health and safety can include:

• The need to be compliant with the law
• Companies don’t want to be prosecuted
• Directors don’t want to go to jail
• Wish to avoid Enforcement Notices

Financial Driving Forces:

Some financial incentives for good health and safety include that companies want to avoid:

• Loss of commercial reputation
• Loss of production
• Fines
• The cost of accident / incident investigation
• The cost of defending civil actions
• High insurance premiums

Moral Driving Forces:

Whilst there are financial and legal benefits to good health and safety, many of the driving forces behind a wish to provide good practice are moral drivers. These can include:

• Companies and directors don’t want to hurt people
• A desire to do the right thing
• A wish to protect workers
• A desire to contribute to the community, not harm it.

Here, we have listed just some of the many health and safety drivers. But what do you think? What drives your desire to provide good health and safety? Let us know on twitter @safety_matters.

The post Simply Put – Driving forces for good health and safety appeared first on LRB.

Key Facts:

• A 100-year-old resident suffered a fatal fall whilst being moved by care home staff.
• Several safety failings were identified including a lack of risk management, lack of training, and a history of improvement notices.
• The company and its director were both prosecuted, being ordered to pay over £335,000 in fines and costs.

The Case:

An investigation was launched after a 100-year-old care home resident died as a result of injuries she sustained in a fall from a hoist.

The resident was being moved from a chair to her bed by carers on 28 August 2010 when she fell. She suffered multiple fractures, including her skull hip and knee and died the following day as a result of her injuries.

The resulting HSE investigation concluded that there had been several key safety failings and that her death could have been prevented had better systems for handling and moving residents been in place.

The two carers who moved her were using a complicated sling but had been given no training in how to use the sling safely. The sling used was not the one that had been recommended for the resident. Therefore, she was not safely position in the sling when she moved herself forward, causing her to fall to the floor.

The care home had a history of serious safety breaches having previously been served five improvement notices in 2010 for resident handling, risk assessment, risks to residents and a lack of competent health and safety advice. In fact, this was not the first incident of this kind at the home; another resident had suffered a similar fall in 2009 resulting in fractures to her tibia and fibula. The incident had not been reported to the HSE.

There was no evidence of the director fulfilling his health and safety obligations through training or risk management.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) had inspected the home on several occasions with the resulted ratings being either ‘adequate’ or ‘poor’. The care home was closed by the CQC in July 2013 as the result of a further inspection.

The case was heard at Luton Crown Court on 27 March 2015, where the care home owners and director were both prosecuted. The company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974. As a result they were fined £50,000 and costs of £36,992.24. The care home director pleaded guilty to breaching Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He was fined £150,000 and costs of £100,000.

What the HSE inspector had to say:

Speaking after the hearing the HSE Inspector Emma Page stated that:

“Mrs Ward’s death was a wholly preventable tragedy caused by unacceptable management failings on the part of GA Projects Ltd and Mr Zarook. They put vulnerable residents at the care home at unnecessary risk.

Working in a care home is a specialised job, which involves dealing with vulnerable people. Care homes must ensure that they have the correct training in place for all their employees, and that they work to adequately assess and mitigate all possible risks, so far as is reasonably practicable.

Moving and handling is a particularly important issue in the healthcare sector and every year vulnerable people suffer injuries caused by poor moving and handling practice.”

What the law states:

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.

Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 states:

Where an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Further information on moving and handling in the health and social care sector 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.

The post Health and Safety Failings – Care home in court after death of resident appeared first on LRB.

Key Facts:

• Building firm owner was left partially buried, and broke his leg and ankle in excavation collapse
• The HSE inspector described him as being ‘reckless with the lives of his employees’.
• The director and the firm were both fined £15,000 each, as well as being ordered to pay £1,176 each in costs.

The case:

In July 2014, the director of an Essex based building firm was left partly buried following an excavation collapse on a site his company were working on. The high sides of an excavation collapsed on him, and fellow workers had to dig him out by hand to rescue him. He suffered a broken leg and ankle, and needed medical assistance.

Southend Magistrates’ Court heard the case on 4 March 2015, following an HSE investigation into the excavation collapse.

Photo of the excavation collapse

The director had been working with another employee and using an excavator to dig in the side of a slope, leaving up to 2.5m high of the slop unsupported, and this ultimately led to the excavation collapse. The second worker jumped to safety, before he and a

third employee had to dig their employer out by hand.

A prohibition notice was served by the HSE, banning any further work until the excavation site had been made safe.

Both the director and the firm were prosecuted following the investigation of the excavation collapse. The firm was fined £15,000 and £1,176 in costs for a breach of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations. The firm director was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay £1,176 in costs.

What the HSE Inspector had to say:

Speaking about the excavation collapse after the hearing, HSE Inspector Adam Hills stated that:

“Paul Connolly not only endangered himself, but was reckless with the lives of his employees. Every year people are killed or seriously injured by collapsing trenches. The dangers here were obvious.

A few simple and inexpensive precautions could have easily prevented this from occurring. To prevent a collapse you should shore, step, or batter back the sides. Do not assume ground will stand up unsupported.”

What the law states:

Regulation 31(1) of Constuction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 states:

 All practicable steps shall be taken, where necessary to prevent danger to any person, including, where necessary, the provision of supports or battering, to ensure that (a) any excavation or part of an excavation does not collapse; (b) no material from a side or roof of, or adjacent to, any excavation is dislodged or falls; and (c) no person is buried or trapped in an excavation by material which is dislodged or falls.

Section 37(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states:

Where an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Further information on the incident can be found on the HSEs website here.

Find details of our safety training courses here

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

Follow us on twitter: @safety_matters

The post Health and Safety Failings – Fine issued following excavation collapse appeared first on LRB.

The  building and joining firm (Peter Mawson Ltd)  pleaded guilty in December to corporate manslaughter and a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 by failing to ensure the safety of employees. The company was fined £200,000 for the corporate manslaughter offence, and £20,000 for the health and safety breach. The Company owner, Mr Peter Mawson, also pleaded guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was sentenced  to:

• eight months in prison, suspended for two years
• 200 hours unpaid work
• a publicity order to advertise what happened on the company website for a set period of time, and to take out a half page spread in the local newspaper, and
• pay costs of £31,504

After the trial, the investigating inspector at HSE, commented:

“Jason tragically lost his life because the company that employed him did nothing to make sure he was safe while he worked on a fragile roof.

“Peter Mawson knew the clear panels on the roof weren’t safe to walk on but neither he nor his company provided any equipment to prevent workers falling to their death. If scaffolding or netting had been fitted under the fragile panels, or covers had been fitted over them, then Jason would still be here today.”

The post Corporate Manslaughter prosecution, fine, suspended sentence and publicity order appeared first on LRB.