These guidelines will come into force on 1 November and mark the first time the Sentencing Council has provided instructions to courts on how to deal with offenders convicted of gross negligence manslaughter. They identify factors that would make the offence particularly serious.

Sentences of between ten and eighteen years in prison for the worse offenders

An individual’s culpability would be put at the highest level for a longstanding and serious disregard for the safety of employees, motivated by financial gain (or avoidance of cost), warranting a prison sentence between ten and 18 years (see table below).

Evidence that the negligent conduct persisted for a long period of time will result in a jail sentence between six and 12 years under the new guidelines. If the offender’s culpability is deemed to be a lapse in otherwise satisfactory standards of care, the jail term will be in the range of one to four years.

Aggravating factors include previous convictions, an offender ignoring earlier warnings or putting others at risk of harm, or involving others through coercion, intimidation or exploitation.

Mitigating features are a lack of previous convictions, attempts to assist the victim, co-operation with the enforcing authority’s investigation, that the offender was stressed or pressured, or, for reasons beyond their control, they lacked the necessary equipment, training or knowledge which contributed to the negligent conduct.

The Sentencing Guidelines for Gross Negligence Manslaughter also apply to unlawful act manslaughter, manslaughter due to loss of control and manslaughter due to diminished responsibility.

Starting point and category range for a single offence of manslaughter resulting in a single fatality

Comments from the Sentencing Council

Overall the Sentencing Guidelines for Gross Negligence Manslaughter are unlikely to change sentence levels but it is expected that in some gross negligence cases sentences will increase. Current sentencing practice in these sorts of cases is lower in the context of overall sentence levels for manslaughter than for other types.

The post New Sentencing Guidelines for Gross Negligence Manslaughter appeared first on LRB.

William and Shelby Thurston were overseeing several rides at Thurston’s Funfair at Harlow Town Park in Essex on 26 March 2016 when the incident happened. They denied responsibility for the child’s death, but a jury at Chelmsford Crown Court convicted the pair on 9 May following a three-week trial. The court was told that the couple had failed to anchor the inflatable dome to the ground securely and did not monitor weather conditions to ensure that it was safe for the bouncy castle to be in use. [SG] was trapped inside the castle when a gust of wind blew the dome away from its moorings. It travelled about 300 m down a hill and struck a tree before coming to a rest. [SG] sustained multiple injuries to her head, neck and chest.

manslaughter by gross negligence

After an investigation by Essex Police, assisted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the couple were charged with manslaughter by gross negligence in June 2017. They were also charged with a failure to discharge a duty under s 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work Act, contrary to s 33(1)(a). They were found guilty by majority verdicts of ten to two.

Witnesses told the court that on 26 March 2016 it had been raining and was windy. A yellow weather warning for high winds was in place and the weather forecast for the weekend was stormy, with Storm Katie expected to arrive on 28 March.

The Essex Police investigation found the couple were running several rides at the funfair, including three inflatables – a large slide, a smaller slide and the Circus Super Dome, which was involved in the incident. The couple opened the rides at about 2.15pm but at 3.30pm William Thurston decided to deflate the large slide due to forecast weather conditions. As he did so, [SG] was on the Circus Super Dome. Just after 4pm, it became untethered, lifted in the air and blew away.

The couple told the court they had regularly checked the Met Office weather updates on the day and had seen the wind was due to pick up in a few hours, so agreed to deflate the large slide first due to the rain. They claimed it was not windy and that a sudden gust blew the dome away. A meteorologist confirmed weather warnings were in place for the area on 26 March and that wind speeds and gusts had increased throughout the day. According to the HSE, the maximum wind speed recorded on the day was 66 kph.

As part of the police investigation, the HSE reinflated the Circus Super Dome and carried out an examination of its condition. Investigators said that, although it was generally of sound construction and thought to be in a satisfactory used condition before the incident, its design did not conform to BS EN 14960, the relevant British Standard for safety in such equipment. The inflatable had insufficient anchorage points and should not have been used in wind speeds above 38 kph. According to the HSE, it is recommended that operators measure wind speed locally with an anemometer when opening rides.

The HSE also identified damage to a power cable, which should have been identified during daily checks. The cable was not fully encased where it fitted into the blower, exposing bare wires. When the couple were interviewed by the police, they said they were familiar with the instructions for using the bouncy castle and that it was checked before and during use.

The couple were found guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence, but sentencing was adjourned until a date yet to be set.

Sentencing

The pair were found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter following a three-week trial at Chelmsford Crown Court. They were also found guilty of breaching s3(2) of the HSWA 1974. They were both jailed for three years and were also ordered to serve an additional one-year prison sentence for the breach to the HSWA 1974, which will run concurrently.

In delivering his sentence, Justice Garnham said the couple

took the most monumental risk with children’s lives by continuing to allow children on the bouncy castle.

After the trial, but before sentencing, Detective chief inspector Daniel Stoten, of the Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate, said:

The inflatable should never have been in use in those weather conditions and the operators should never have allowed Summer to play on it

The post Prison Sentence for couple convicted for Manslaughter over bouncy castle death appeared first on LRB.

An employee of  Koseoglu Metalworks Ltd (NV, aged 63) died in hospital after falling through the roof of a warehouse in Harlow in April 2015. At the hearing at Chelmsford Crown Court, Koseoglu Metalworks Ltd admitted an offence of corporate manslaughter and its sole director, Kadir Kose, admitted an offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA).

Ozdil Investments Ltd denied corporate manslaughter and a HSWA offence but was convicted following a trial at Chelmsford Crown Court. Two of its directors, Firat Ozdil and Ozgur Ozdil, were convicted of a HSWA offence and were jailed for twelve months and ten months. Kose was jailed for eight months.

The court heard how Ozdil Investments Ltd was the owner of the warehouse in question, called Ozdil House, where the roof needed repairs. It is understood that both the Health and Safety Executive and Harlow District warned the company about the dangers involved in the repair work and specifically the need for safety measures such as netting to be put in place. Despite these warnings, Firat Ozdil and Ozgur Ozdil paid their friend Kose and his company Koseoglu Metalworks Ltd to carry out the work without netting or other safety measures. The court heard Koseoglu Metalworks Ltd had no experience of roofing work and the fee paid by the Ozdils was approximately £100,000 under what a recognised roofing contractor would have charged.

In addition to the three directors jailed, both companies were also fined:

• Koseoglu Metalworks Ltd, who admitted an offence of corporate manslaughter, was fined a total of £400,000 and ordered to pay £21,236 in prosecution costs (the fine comprised £300,000 for corporate manslaughter, and £100,000 for Section 3 of the HSW Act
• Ozdil Investments Ltd, who denied a charge of corporate manslaughter and an offence under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSW Act) but who were convicted following a trial., were fined £660,000 and ordered to pay £53,115.34 in prosecution costs (the fine comprised £500,000 for corporate manslaughter, and £160,000 for Section 3 of the HSW Act).

Kose did not carry out a risk assessment at the site and sent staff employed by his company onto the roof without training. While working on the roof, NV stepped onto a discoloured skylight and fell to his death.

Luke Bulpitt, from the CPS, said:

By ignoring the safety measures they knew were required, the Odzils and their company risked the lives of everyone working on the roof in an attempt to save money.

Kadir Kose and Koseoglu Metalworks undertook the work to the roof without taking any appropriate safety steps, gambling with the lives of their employees.

Faced with the evidence against him, Kose and Koseoglu Metalworks admitted their guilt but the Ozdils and their company contested the charges. However, having heard the compelling case put forward by the prosecution, the jury returned guilty verdicts. Our thoughts remain with the family of NV

Recently retired Detective Inspector Ian Jennings, investigation officer in the case, said

NV was utterly failed by Firat and Ozgur Ozdil, Kadir Kose, and the companies they ran.

His death was completely preventable and has caused an immeasurable sense of sadness and loss to his family.

The Ozdils and Kose showed a total disregard for their responsibilities to ensure the safety of workers on the site.

These men now face a significant amount of time in prison to reflect on their actions – or lack of them – and I pleased they will not be able to put anyone else’s safety at risk.

I hope their sentences will bring some solace to NV’s family. It won’t bring him back though, and that is something his loved ones have to deal with every day.

Speaking after the hearing HSE inspector David King said

It is essential both clients and contractors comply with their duties under relevant regulations when planning and undertaking construction work.

As in this case, the failure of clients and principal contractors to comply with these legal duties can have tragic consequences.

Clients must ensure contractors have the appropriate skills, knowledge and experience for the task, and must make suitable arrangements for managing a project.

In addition to the latter contractors must also take into account the general principles to eliminate, so far as is reasonably practicable, foreseeable risks to the health or safety of those affected by the work.

The post Three directors jailed appeared first on LRB.

Haulage Company Director and Mechanic sent to jail for four deaths

A haulage company boss and a mechanic have both been jailed following a tipper truck crash in 2015 that killed four people in Bath. The lorry driver was cleared of dangerous driving and careless driving charges.
The Company Director (MG) and the mechanic were found guilty of gross negligence manslaughter in December 2016. The case was widely reported in the papers. Lack of suitable and qualified maintenance of the brakes and the truck led to the four deaths, which included a four-year-old child. Bristol Crown Court heard how Gordon, whose company made around £500,000 a year, skimped on repair bills and encouraged truckers to drive dangerously so he could maximise turnover. An accident investigator who examined the crashed lorry, which had 441,000 miles on the clock, said it was the worst HGV he had ever inspected.

The Judge, Mr Justice Langstaff told the pair:

You knew that being casual about the safety risked the lives of others. Your failures are inexplicable.
If they were one-off failures that would be bad enough, but they are not. They were part and parcel of the way you approached your responsibilities.

MG (the owner of the lorry firm Grittenham Haulage) was jailed for seven years and six months, and the mechanic (PW) was jailed for five years and three months.

Director jailed – Warehouse roof repaired “as cheaply as possible”

MR, Director at Al Amin Wholesale, has received a two and a half year prison sentence for the death of a contractor and the serious injury of another. MR commissioned two Polish workers to carry out the roof repairs and gutter cleaning through the services of an interpreter and did not discuss procedures, risk assessments (RAMS), PPE and other safety issues. The Company pleaded guilty to breaching S3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work at and was fined £144,000 with costs of £44,600.

The prosecution told the court that the two workers should not have been considered competent roofers and stated: “Al Amin and MR should have warned the workers that the roof was fragile. Neither did so. There was no protection to stop a person falling off or through the roof. [the two workers] should not have been considered competent roofers. They were simply labourers. Nothing was done to assess their competence.”

According to West Midlands police ”

His main priority had been to get roof repairs done as cheaply as possible with disregard to the safety of workers. The recklessness and negligence shown in this case had led directly to the death and we are pleased the severity of this was recognised in court. The main priority was to get the job done as cheaply as possible with complete disregard for the safety of these workers – with tragic consequences. We hope this sentence sends out a message to others than health and safety is not an optional extra.

The post Jail sentences for Safety Failures appeared first on LRB.

Site Manager Jailed for 30 months following a week-long manslaughter trial at Birmingham Crown Court. The judge, Mr. Justice John Saunders, said:

“It seems the defendant had no idea of the responsibilities he had for maintaining the safety of the site. The defendant paid no regard to health and safety requirements whatsoever.”

What finding led to this statement?

An experienced window fitter (U-R), agreed to fit doors and windows on the site over a weekend in January last year. Shortly after arriving on the site he fell three metres through an open skylight on a first floor flat roof. As a result of this fall, he suffered serious head injuries and, despite surgery, died four days later. Police investigating the death found a raft of failings at the site. Ladders were not secured properly, and one was found balancing in a pile of sand. Openings in the ceilings on the first and second floors were not guarded, and workers had no protective clothing. There were no signs warning of hazards and scaffolding was not properly secured on the site.

Prohibition Notice Breached

HSE Inspectors visited the site and issued a prohibition notice on the Site Manager, ordering a halt to any work at height. But on two subsequent visits, they found evidence that work had continued. The second breach of the Prohibition Notice was after U-R has died. When police attended the site in early February, they again found the order had been breached. The Site Manager was arrested and charged with manslaughter by gross negligence.

Deanna Heer, prosecuting, said that even after the fatal fall, [The site Manager] … “refused to accept any responsibility for the safety of workers on his site.”

Mr Justice Saunders also said “It is an aggravating feature that despite a prohibition notice the defendant continued to allow people to work on both the first and second floor. The second offence was after U-R died.”

The post Construction Site Manager Jailed for Manslaughter due to Negligence appeared first on LRB.

Key Facts: 

• A 21-year-old worker was electrocuted after coming into contact with live cabling in a food company’s loft.
• He was pronounced dead at the scene by the ambulance crew.
• The food company was  fined £170,000 and ordered to pay costs of £35,403.

The Case: 

An HSE investigation was launched into the practices of a food company after a worker was killed after contact with a live electrical cable.

A 21-year-old worker was working in the loft space of the food company when he came into contact with a live electrical cable and was electrocuted. The ambulance crew pronounced him dead at the scene.

The subsequent HSE investigation found that the cable was part of an old system that had been removed, but was not identified in any way, nor was its existence known by the company. There had been plenty of opportunity for the redundant cables to be made safe, but it had been assumed that they were not live. Had there been safe systems of work in place, this would have been identified and controlled, and the death of the worker could have been avoided.

The case was heard at Chichester Crown Court where the firm pleaded guilty to two breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. They were fined £170,000 and ordered to pay costs of £35,403.

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.”

More information about Electrical 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.

The post Food Company Fined After Worker Electrocuted | Health & 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:

• An engineer has been prosecuted after a worker was crushed to death by an excavator on an Orkney pier.
• The HSE investigating officer stated that the ‘tragic incident could have been avoided had the work been properly planned, appropriately supervised and carried out in a safe manner.’
• The engineer was fined £12,000.

The Case:

An investigation was launched after a worker was crushed to death whilst working on a pier in Orkney in an incident on 13 November 2012. The engineer who employed him was investigated.

The employee was working with two other men to unload metal panels at the end of the pier using an excavator. All three men were directing the excavator operator, telling him where to move. After the last metal panel was lowered, the workers realised that one of the men was lying face down on the floor. He was unresponsive. The emergency services were called, but he was declared dead at the scene.

Although there were no witnesses, the evidence all pointed towards the scenario that he had been hit by a moving excavator and crushed between its bucket and a fixed cabinet at the end of the pier.

Several key safety failings were identified by the investigation into the incident:

• The engineer overseeing the work had carried out a risk assessment, but had not identified mechanical lifting as a hazard, or the risks associated with the use of an excavator.
• Reasonable precautions were not in place to prevent such an incident.
• At the time of the incident, darkness was falling. The workers had removed their hi-vis jackets, thinking they would break for tea, but decided to carry on with the unloading first. Therefore, the job started whilst two workers – included the man who was struck – were not wearing their hi-vis jackets.
• The excavation driver’s vision was obstructed by various objects, and environmental factors such as poor lighting.
• No exclusion zone was established around the excavator.

The case was heard at Kirkwall Sheriff Court on 25 March 2015. The court heard the HSE’s investigation concluded that given the lack of precautions and planning, it was entirely foreseeable that an incident might occur. The engineer in charge of the project pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 8 of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998. He was fined £12,000.

What the HSE inspector had to say:

Speaking after the hearing the HSE Inspector Niall Miller stated that:

“This tragic incident could have been avoided had the work been properly planned, appropriately supervised and carried out in a safe manner.

All lifting operations are considered potentially hazardous and regulations are in place to ensure measures are taken to control the risks. Where an excavator is being used, visibility for the operator should be maximised by removing the bucket and by all operatives wearing high visibility clothing.

When an excavator is used for lifting, workers need to be close to the boom in order to sling the load and attach it to the excavator. This puts them in the hazardous area where if the machine swings they can be hit by the load, boom or bucket or crushed against a fixed object as in this case.

These risks are well recognised within the construction industry but sadly, Mr Reid’s failure to assess them properly when planning this job ended in tragedy.”

What the law states:

Regulation 8 of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 states:

Every employer shall ensure that every lifting operation involving lifting equipment is (a) properly planned by a competent person; (b) appropriately supervised; and (c) carried out in a safe manner.

Further information on safe work with excavators 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 – Prosecution after worker crushed to death by excavator appeared first on LRB.

Key Facts:

• A toy distributing firm and a builder have been prosecuted after a worker fell to his death.
• The worker fell 9m after falling through a warehouse roof panel whilst undertaking work at height.
• The toy company was fined £200,000 and £10,483 in costs.
• The builder was given a six month prison sentence, suspended for twelve months.

The Case:

An investigation was launched after a worker fell to his death from the roof of a toy distributor’s warehouse.

The toy distributing company were having some issues with debris washing down the warehouse roof and overflowing into the warehouse below. Therefore, they had contracted a builder to undertake roof cleaning work. However, they failed to ensure the builder was competent.

The builder and his employee climed onto the 36,000 square foot roof, without having undertaken any preparation work, planning, or risk assessments. No harnesses or other safety equipment was used.

Four days into the roof cleaning project, the builder’s employee stepped onto one of the clear panels, designed to let light into the warehouse. He fell through the panel, falling 9m to the concrete floor below. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

The case was heard at Preston Crown Court on 20 March 2015, where both the builder and the toy distributing company were prosecuted as a result of the incident.

The toy company pleaded guilty to a single breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and were fined £200,000 and £10,483 in costs.

The builder was given a six month prison sentence, suspended for 12 months, for a breach of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 by failing to make sure the work was carried out safely.

What the HSE inspector had to say:

Speaking after the hearing the HSE Inspector Allen Shute stated that:

“Craig Gray should never have been allowed onto the warehouse roof without being given suitable training and equipment, but both Halsall Toys and David Plant allowed his life to be put in danger.

Halsall Toys hired Mr Plant to carry out the work despite him not having any previous experience of working on industrial roofs. The firm should have carried out checks to make sure the work would be carried out safely.

Mr Plant also had a legal duty to make sure the right equipment was used for the job, whether it was using harnesses or simply placing covers over the fragile roof panels to remove the risk of them collapsing.

Sadly incidents of workers falling through warehouse roofs are all too common, and it’s vital firms do more to make sure this kind of work is carried out safely and by competent people.”

What the law states:

Regulation 9(2) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 states:

Where it is not reasonably practicable to carry out work safely and under appropriate ergonomic conditions without passing across or near, or working on, from or near, a fragile surface, every employer shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that suitable and sufficient platforms, coverings, guard rails or similar means of support or protection are provided and used so that any foreseeable loading is supported by such supports or borne by such protection; where a risk of a person at work falling remains despite the measures taken under the preceding provisions of this regulation, take suitable and sufficient measures to minimise the distances and consequences of his fall.

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 health and safety at work 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 – Multiple prosecutions after worker fell to his death appeared first on LRB.

We’ve been having fun in the office trying to come up with a definitive A – Z of health and safety words and ideas. See if you agree with the words we chose…

A)     Asbestos 

Asbestos is still present in millions of homes and buildings – it can be in any house built before 2000. Asbestos exposure still kills around 5,000 workers each year. Whilst safe work with asbestos has come a long way, we still have a way to go. Read some of our asbestos articles here.

B)      Benefits

The benefits of good workplace health and safety are wide and far reaching. By implementing good policies, companies can avoid hefty fines and maintain a healthy workforce. For employees, a good health and safety culture can improve workplace morale, and allow workers to enjoy good health. There are plenty more benefits of implementing good health and safety policies – but that’s an article in itself!

C)      Construction

The last 40 years have seen a substantial reduction in the number of fatal injuries in the construction industry, but it remains a high risk industry to work in. Falls from height remain the biggest cause of fatalities in construction, followed by being struck by falling or moving objects, being struck by a vehicle, and structural collapses.

D)     DSE (Display Screen Equipment)

Health and safety isn’t all about climbing ladders, construction sites and factories. Every workplace has its own challenges – and an office environment is no different. Computer workstations can be associated with neck, shoulder and back pain, fatigue, and eyestrain.

E)      Extinguishers and Exits

Fire safety is an important aspect of health and safety management for all businesses, but unfortunately all too often it can be overlooked. Most fires are preventable, and those responsible for buildings can avoid them by sensibly managing the risks.

F)      First aid

It is an employer’s responsibility to make sure that employees receive immediate attention if they are injured or take ill whilst at work. Ensuring reasonable first aid provisions (such as appointed persons, trained first-aiders, a first-aid box) are available is an important aspect of these arrangements.  

G)     Gas

If gas appliances aren’t properly installed and maintained, the consequences can be severe. There are risks of fires, explosions, gas leaks, and carbon monoxide poisoning. Regulations are in place so that only Gas Safe registered engineers are legally allowed to carry out work on gas appliances.

H)     Hazard

A hazard is defined as anything that could cause harm to people or property – and a big part of risk management is about accurately identifying potential hazards. However, let’s remember that sensible risk management is not about stopping all activities with associated risks, but rather it’s about taking reasonably practicable steps to protect people from real harm and suffering.

I)        Injury

Thankfully, numbers and rates of injury at work have reduced significantly over the last decade. However, we still have a long way to go with an estimated 629,000 workers suffering a workplace injury in 2013/14. By continuing to strive for excellence in occupational health and safety, we can hope to drive these numbers down.

J)       Judge

The costs of poor health and safety practices can be huge, and they can result in court cases, hefty fines, and even jail sentences. You can read our reports on health and safety prosecutions here. 

K)      Kitchen

Food safety is an important aspect of catering businesses. Good practice has several benefits to companies. It can protect your business’ reputation, ensure you are complying with legislation, and even improve your business overheads by reducing food wastage.

L)       Ladders

Think of health and safety, and you may well think of work at height. ‘Work at height’ is defined as any place where, if precautions were not in place, a person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury. Falls from height are one of the biggest causes of workplace fatalities and major injuries, with common causes including falls from ladders and falls through fragile roofs. You can read some of our case studies on work at height here. 

M)   Manual Handling

Manual handling causes more than a third of workplace injuries. Manual handling covers a variety of activities across a variety of industries, such as lifting, lowering, pushing, pulling and carrying. It’s important to provide adequate advice, training and equipment in order to reduce the occurrence of issues such as musculoskeletal disorders, joint pain and repetitive strain injury.

N)     Noise

Noise in the workplace can have several consequences. Loud noises can damage employees hearing, which can be permanent and disabling. Prolonged noise exposure might also lead to tinnitus. And there may be more immediate issues – in a noisy workplace, communication may be difficult making warnings harder to hear and causing accidents and injury.

O)     Occupational health

When we think of ‘health and safety’, we often think of hazards, risk assessments and accidents – the ‘safety’ side of it. It’s sometimes easy to forget that ‘health’ is part of it too. Some of the main areas of focus for occupational health are asbestos, stress,  

P)      PPE (Personal Protective Equipment)

PPE protects employees against health and safety risks at work. It covers things such as safety helmets, gloves, eye protection, hi-vis clothing, safety footwear etc. It’s important to remember that it’s not just about providing workers with PPE – you’ve got to train and educate them how to use it properly.

Q)     Quarries

Bet you didn’t think we’d come up with something for ‘Q’, did you! Quarrying remains one of the most dangerous industries to work in, with over 3500 reportable injuries since 2000.

R)      Risk Assessment

A ‘risk assessment’ shouldn’t be thought of as something that creates lots of unnecessary paperwork, full of health and safety jargon. Instead, put simply, it’s the process of thinking about what could go wrong and taking appropriate action to try and stop this. There may well be a need to write the assessment down – but the first process should always be thinking. Read more in our ‘Simply Put’ article on risk assessments.

S)      Stress

According to the HSE’s 2013/14 report, 11.3 million working days were lost to work-related stress, with 244,000 new cases reported during the period. The estimated cost to society is around £4 billion each year. Taking steps to better manage work-related stress can yield huge rewards for employers and employees alike. Read more about work-related stress in our article here.

T)      Trips

Slips, trips and falls about for 56% of all major injuries, with an average of 2 million working days a year being lost to such accidents. Guidance on causes and prevention can be found from the HSE here.

U)     Understanding

A good health and safety culture isn’t about having policies and procedures written down – it’s about making sure these policies are understood.

V)     Vehicles

Vehicles at work are a major cause of fatal and major injuries, with over 5000 workplace transport incidents reported each year. It’s estimated that a third of all road traffic accidents involve someone who is at work at the time. You can find out more about workplace transport safety here.   

W)   Workforce

A positive health and safety culture is one that includes your workforce. Encouraging their active involvement in safety policies will lead to better communication and better implementation of your procedures. The HSE have found that accident rates are lower in workplaces where employees genuinely feel like they have a say in health and safety matters.

X)      … okay, we’ll admit this one stumped us a bit. Discarded ideas included ‘X-Factor, Xylophone, Xerox. If you have any ideas, get in touch with us on twitter: @safety_matters.

Y)      Young people

Young people, new to the world of work, may be unfamiliar with workplace risks. It’s important to make sure they are provided with relevant training and information in order to undertake their work safely. In high-risk environments, additional safeguards may be necessary for young workers.   

Z)      Zero

In an ideal world, zero would be the number of accidents and incidents in the workplace. Unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world – and therefore health and safety isn’t about creating environments with zero risks. It’s about managing risks, in a reasonable and practicable manner.

–

–

So there we go – that’s our A-Z of Health and Safety! Would you have chosen the same words as us? Let us know on twitter @safety_matters what you think! 

The post Spotlight On – A – Z of Health and Safety appeared first on LRB.