Fine after a lathe accident left employee with amputated finger

One notable case involved a machine manufacturing company in Middleton, where an employee lost a finger after their glove became caught in a metalworking lathe. HSE investigators found that the company had not properly assessed the risks and lacked an adequate safe system of work. Crucially, HSE guidance states that emery cloth should never be applied directly by hand when using such machinery, underlining the need for clear procedures and operator training.

Fine after employer’s fingers severed in printing machine

In another February prosecution, a South Kirby wooden cable drum manufacturer was fined after an employee’s fingers were partially severed when they were drawn into unguarded rollers during cleaning operations. The investigation revealed that dangerous parts of the machine had not been effectively guarded, placing the worker at risk during normal tasks. The HSE inspector said:

“An employee was tasked with cleaning the printer without provision of suitable information, instruction or training, particularly in relation to the safety devices intended to protect them.”

Ensuring machinery safety

These cases reinforce a consistent message that employers must ensure machinery is:

• Safely isolated
• Properly guarded
• Supported by thorough risk assessments
• Not used until suitable training has been provided
• Actively monitored against safety standards

Regular training, supervision and adherence to HSE guidance are essential in preventing avoidable injuries. By learning from recent prosecutions, organisations can strengthen their safety culture and safeguard their workforce against similar incidents.

The post Recent HSE prosecutions: The importance of machine safety appeared first on LRB.

Nathan Cook, HSE senior enforcement lawyer, told Chester Magistrates Court, how a visit in December 2019 found significant breaches of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (COSHH) – resulting in six improvement notices being served. These included requirements for the company to undertake statutory examinations of its wood dust extraction systems and to undertake face fit testing for those employees required to wear tight fitting face masks.

The HSE identified several examples of lack of control of dust in the workplace:

However, another visit to the same premises in November 2021 found identical breaches and again improvement notices were served.

This inspection came as part of HSE’s national campaign targeting woodworking businesses. The significant occupational health risks associated with wood dust and the continued failure to ensure control of exposure to wood dust resulted in HSE prosecuting the company.

Pineland Furniture Limited pleaded guilty to breaching regulations 7(1) and 9(2)(a) of COSHH. They were fined £16,000 and was ordered to pay £3008 costs at a hearing at Chester Magistrates Court on 11^th October 2023.

HSE inspectors identified that Pineland Furniture had failed to protect its workers from wood dust:

After the hearing, HSE inspector Ian Betley said:

Wood dust is a substance hazardous to health because it can cause serious non-reversible health problems, including asthma; dermatitis; and irritation to the eyes, nose and throat.

Occupational lung disease causes the death of 12,000 people in Great Britain annually, and there are an estimated 19,000 new cases of breathing and lung problems each year, where individuals regarded their condition as being caused or made worse by work.

It is important to carry out statutory thorough examinations of extraction equipment and ensure face fit testing, as required by COSHH to help prevent ill health.

We will not hesitate to take enforcement action when necessary to make sure workers’ health is protected.

The preceding article contains public sector information published by the Health and Safety Executive and licensed under the Open Government Licence.

Need help tackling your workplace Health and Safety issues? Contact LRB Consulting Limited  – 01509 550023

The post Wood Dust Dangers lead to fine appeared first on LRB.

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.

Dennis Riley, 52, Robert Broome, 48, Andrew Jenkins, 33, and Julie Jones, 54, died after a storage tank exploded at the site. Andrew Philips also sustained major injuries.

Swansea Crown Court heard how on 2 June 2011, the five workers were emptying a tank in the Amine Recovery Unit using a vacuum tanker when the explosion and subsequent fire took place shortly after 6 pm.

B & A Contracts Ltd, which was a long-term contractor at the refinery, was carrying out the work, with support from another contractor, Hertel.

The explosion resulted in a fireball which severed the 5-tonne tank roof, and this was projected 55 metres to impact against a butane storage sphere. The roof narrowly missed a pipe track where a range of flammable materials were carried.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive found the explosion was most likely to have been initiated by the ignition of a highly flammable atmosphere within the tank, during what should have been a routine emptying operation in preparation for further cleaning and maintenance.

The investigation also found there had been longstanding failures within the refinery safety management systems and as a result the risks posed by flammable atmospheres within the Amine Recovery Unit were not understood or controlled.

At the time of the incident, the refinery was operated by Chevron Limited, but ownership changed in August 2011 when the sale to Valero was completed.

Valero Energy UK Ltd of Wood Street, London, pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company have been fined £5 million and ordered to pay costs of £1 million.

B & A Contracts Ltd of Hubberston Road, Pembrokeshire pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. They have been fined £120,000 and ordered to pay costs of £40,000.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Andrew Knowles said: “This incident, which had devastating consequences for all of those involved, was entirely preventable. Many opportunities to take action to control risk were missed, that would have prevented the incident from occurring. It is important to realise that the incident could have had even more serious consequences had the butane sphere or pipe track been damaged by the flying tank roof.

Detective Superintendent Anthony Griffiths said:

Officers from Dyfed-Powys Police worked closely with the Health and Safety Executive to support them in the very complex investigation to establish the cause of this tragic incident. We hope that the lessons learned ensure that a tragedy of this nature doesn’t happen again. Our thoughts remain with all the families involved.

The post Valero Energy UK fined £5 million after four people died in an oil explosion appeared first on LRB.

The construction firm BAM Nuttall has been fined more than £800,000 after a worker was struck by a large expanded polystyrene (EPS) block.

[AS] was working on the construction of a piling platform (used for construction plant such as rigs or mobile cranes) at Redhill Station in Surrey in 2017 when one of the blocks hit him on the head, fracturing three of his vertebrae. On 20 January an EPS block slipped from the excavator bucket whilst being lowered into place. An investigation by the HSE found that the lifting operation had not been properly planned and the block was simply held between the arm of the excavator and the bucket.

This incident could so easily have been avoided by simply using appropriate lifting accessories such as chains and strops to carry out the lifting operation.

Note:

• BAM Nuttall was fined £900,000 in April last year after a painter fell through a fragile railway station ceiling into a passenger waiting room and sustained severe ligament damage.
• In July 2017 BFK, a joint venture between BAM Nuttall, Ferrovial and Kier, was fined more than £1m over three separate accidents during the construction of the western tunnels for London’s Crossrail project.
• It was also fined £56,000 in 2014 after workers were exposed to lead during the refurbishment of the Nab Tower, and £140,000 over an incident in 2010 in which a construction worker was crushed under a six-tonne concrete and steel beam.

The post Failure to plan (a second article) and to do the basics – lifting operation appeared first on LRB.

The Magistrates’ Court in Newton Abbot heard that between October 2016 and May 2017 construction work was undertaken to refurbish the hotel on Taw Vale. Parts of the hotel were originally constructed during the 1960s and 1970s when asbestos was a popular building material. The project aimed to refit and refurbish bathrooms and bedrooms.

Asbestos disturbed

An investigation by the HSE found that, at an early stage of the work, an employee raised concerns about the potential presence of  ACM within the rooms under refurbishment. Enquiries were made but no physical testing of the materials being disturbed was undertaken. Work continued for several more months and concerns about the materials within the bedrooms and bathrooms were raised again by external contractors. Testing of the material being disturbed was eventually conducted in February 2017 and the presence of ACMs was confirmed.

Whilst the HSE investigation was in progress the defendant had a further incident in May 2017 where ACM were disturbed during bathroom refurbishment works being undertaken. The planning undertaken for this work, which had included an assessment as to the presence of ACM, was inadequate as it failed to identify the full scope of the work proposed and the materials that would be disturbed during pipework installation works.

The investigation also found that refurbishment work was undertaken at the hotel without the appropriate assessment as to the presence of ACM. Once identified the hotel took remedial action which included sampling of common parts for asbestos fibres, which came back as negative.

Percy R Brend and Sons (Hoteliers) Ltd of Taw Vale, Barnstaple pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. They have been fined £80,000 and ordered to pay costs of £14,999.60.

Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector Jo-Anne Michael said:

The dangers associated with asbestos are well known and a wealth of advice and guidance is freely available from HSE and other organisations.

Identification of the hazard is key. Duty holders should not undertake any work which either exposes or is liable to expose their employees to asbestos unless they have carried out a suitable and sufficient assessment as to the presence, location and condition of asbestos in the premises. Those persons tasked with undertaking the assessment should have the necessary skills.

The post Asbestos disturbed – hoteliers fines appeared first on LRB.

Luton Crown Court heard how on 11 August 2015, SDC Builders Ltd failed to carry out a suitable and sufficient assessment to identify the presence of asbestos in all areas of the building where work was to be carried out.

An investigation by the HSE found that SDC Builders Ltd failed to carry out the procedures required under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. Subsequently, asbestos-containing materials were disturbed in the course of the work. The company failed to ensure all workers were informed and did not take the necessary measures to control access into the area until remedial actions were taken.

SDC Builders pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5 and Regulation 15 of The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. The company has been fined £185,000 and ordered to pay costs of £28,118.74

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Alison Outhwaite said

Asbestos remains the top cause of fatal illness because of exposure in the workplace. It is important that contractors responsible for the refurbishment of premises constructed before 2000 identify whether asbestos is present and take the appropriate action to prevent exposure.

Our Asbestos Awareness training, in conjunction with our retained Health and Safety service, will help you avoid asbestos failures. We will help you avoid exposing your workers to this harmful substances, and help you comply with relevant health and safety legislation.

The post Asbestos failures lead (again) to substantial fines appeared first on LRB.

In April 2018, an asbestos removal company and two of its managers were prosecuted after forging documents in order to obtain an asbestos licence from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

Greater Manchester Magistrates’ Court heard how, between 16 March 2012 and 10 March 2016, Excavation and Contracting (UK) Ltd used both forged medical certificates and forged asbestos training certificates for their asbestos removal operatives. These forged documents had been made by their asbestos operations manager, Mr David Lloyd, and included medicals in the name of the company operations manager, Lee Cooper, and forged training certificates for Lee Cooper and the managing director, Brendan O’Halloran. The doctor who had allegedly issued these medical certificates had retired sometime earlier to live outside the UK.

The HSE investigation found the defendants had used forged documents to obtain an asbestos licence from HSE in order to trade. The investigation also found the company could not show that they had properly trained or adequately monitored their workers who were exposed to asbestos.

David Lloyd pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 10(1)(a) and 22(1)(c) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. He was sentenced to 12 weeks in prison suspended for two years and was ordered to carry out 200 hours of community service. He was also ordered to pay costs of £1,000.

Lee Cooper pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 10(1)(a) and 22(1)(c) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and was ordered to undertake 80 hours of community service and pay costs of £1,000.

Excavation and Contracting (UK) Ltd of West Quay Road, Warrington, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 10(1)(a) and 22(1)(c) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and was fined £13,000 and ordered to pay costs of £10,000.

HSE inspector Matt Greenly said after the case:

Putting people at risk from asbestos by not training them or monitoring their health, as required by law, not only puts their lives at risk from an incurable set of diseases, but is also wholly unnecessary.

There are ample affordable training providers and approved doctors who can carry out these functions at the convenience of the contractor. Taking deliberate shortcuts by creating forged documents will not be tolerated by HSE and we will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below the required standards.

The post Forged asbestos documents leads to fine and suspended jail sentence appeared first on LRB.

Workers use crowbars to smash asbestos roof

Workers had not been given personal protective equipment and used crowbars to smash up asbestos cement roof sheets, which was then left on top of mobile elevated work platforms (MEWPs) and forklift trucks. They were also working near open service pits without fall restraint equipment or edge protection, and a MEWP had been parked 1 m away from the perimeter of one of the pits. Only one of the three foreign nationals who were operating the workplace vehicles spoke English, and there were no toilets or washing facilities on site.

In May 2016, the HSE served an immediate prohibition on Quainton for putting workers and the public at risk from the potential spread of asbestos and from falls from height, including the roof and open pits.

The company pleaded guilty to breaching regs 15(2) and 28(6) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, for putting workers’ safety and health at risk and for failing to take measures to prevent a vehicle from falling into a pit respectively, and s 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act. It was fined £14,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,870.

The post Catalogue of failures – including using crowbars to smash an asbestos roof appeared first on LRB.

A few years ago there was a significant prosecution in Scotland based on a failure in the health and safety management of a company, mainly to do with their lack of active monitoring.  This is a very brief summary of the key points of this case.

In common with other important aspects of running a business (e.g. sales, production, finance, quality, etc.) companies need to measure their health and safety management performance to find out if they are being successful. Monitoring may be split into two distinct areas: Active Monitoring and Reactive Monitoring. Most people are familiar with, and comfortable with, the concept of reactive monitoring. Reactive Monitoring is the process of investigation into things that have gone wrong (such as accident investigation) and involves learning from mistakes. These mistakes may have resulted in injuries and illness, property damage or near misses.

Active monitoring is an important aspect of modern health and safety management that appears to be very difficult for some companies to accept and to buy into. It is the things that we do that generally keep employees (and other persons) from harm; but it is the records and documents that we keep (and complete) that help to protect the Company. A Scottish court case from a couple of years ago helps to put this into context.

M (a Scottish tyre-fitting firm) was fined £10,000 for failing (in the words of the Procurator Fiscal) to “give effect to arrangements that were appropriate for monitoring and reviewing its health and safety policy. It didn’t check that people were actually following it.” Regulation 5 of the Management of Health and Safety Work Regulations 1999 places a duty on employers to ensure effective planning, control, monitoring and review of the preventive and protective measures within their health and safety arrangements. This point is expanded with the Approved Code of Practice that supports the Regulations where the point is made that “Active monitoring reveals how effectively the health and safety management system is functioning”

Sequence of events
The case followed a traffic incident in which one of T’s employees and the driver of a broken-down (client) lorry were killed at the roadside. One of M’s tyre fitters attended an early morning breakdown on the A90 Dundee-Aberdeen road. The broken-down vehicle had stopped in the nearside lane (no hard shoulder available on this stretch) and the hazard warning lights had been switched on. The section of the road in that area was unlit and, according to witnesses on the road at the time of the crash, the two drivers could barely be seen. This indicates that they were not wearing high-visibility jackets. Unfortunately, the driver of a third vehicle failed to spot the breakdown in time and collided with the broken down truck, shunting it into the recovery vehicle, which had been parked in front and killed the two men on the scene. The driver of this third vehicle pleaded guilty to a charge of reckless driving.

HSE Findings
During the investigation into the incident, the HSE discovered that M had a good, up to date, written Health and Safety Policy that addressed issues such as the wearing of Hi-visibility fluorescent jackets, the placing of traffic cones at the site of the breakdown and parking the recovery vehicle between the broken down vehicle and the oncoming traffic. It also discovered, however, that none of these measures had been implemented in practice. The court heard that M’s driver had seen the policy and had signed it to acknowledge that he had read it. It also heard that the Company had carried out a vehicle check about a month before the accident. According to Procurator Fiscal, the failing of M was in not putting into practice what it had put down on paper. The Company could not demonstrate that it monitored the use and effectiveness of policies and procedures or the control measures arising from its risk assessments. It did not take enough steps to ensure that its employees were working to the Company’s procedures.

Summary
This case highlights the fact that it is not enough to have a health and safety policy and expect everyone within the organization to understand it and to work to that policy. People must receive suitable and sufficient training in the policy and then the effectiveness of the policy must be established. Active Monitoring of Health & Safety is important for protecting employees and organisations and is part of health and safety management.

The post Health and Safety Management – Active Monitoring appeared first on LRB.