Health & Safety NewsletterMay 2008
http://www.mccarthyhealthandsafety.co.uk/Safety, Health and Environmental
Training
2008
Harness AppreciationJune 5th
Risk Assessment WorkshopJune 11th
Work At HeightJune 13th
Fire Safety AwarenessJune 20th
Asbestos AwarenessJune 24th
Ladders & StepsJune 25th
M.A.S.T.T Scaffold Tower TrainingJuly 1st
£11,000 Machine fine
Glue manufacturer Chemence must pay nearly £11,000 in fines and costs after an employee lost part of a finger in an unguarded machine.
In July 2007 Melissa Graham was placing empty tubes into a machine that filled them with glue. She put her hand inside the machine to flick away a tube that was causing a jam when her hand was caught and pulled further in.
She pressed the stop button but the drive chain continued to move. Two colleagues tried to press the emergency stop button but Grahams left middle finger was severed. Graham was trapped for more than an hour before being flown by air ambulance to hospital. Doctors were unable to save the finger.
On 23rd April Corby magistrates fined Chemence £9000 with costs of £1836 after the firm admitted breaching Regulation 3(1)(a) of the management of Health & Safety at Work Regulations, which requires employers to conduct a suitable risk assessment, and Regulation 11(1)(a) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations, which states that employers must take effective measures to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery.
Risk Assessment SeminarWidnes Company fined over £15,000
A Widnes company has been fined £13,000 and ordered to pay £2,730 full costs after pleading guilty to a criminal charge under Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act at Warrington Magistrates Court.
The court heard that on 13 June 2005 Anthony Green, an employee of the Merseyside Coatings Ltd, was shotblasting a large tank from the top of a scaffold tower at the companies premises in Pickerings Road, Widnes.
HSE Inspector Iain Evans, who took the case, says: "A competent person had not erected the tower, and consequently the outriggers were not installed. These stability devices significantly increase the floor area of the tower and hence its stability. Neither the supervisor nor any of the employees working on the tower had received any training in working at height or on scaffold towers.
Whilst the Company had correctly identified the risks and appropriate control measures through a risk assessment, on this occasion none of the control measures were implemented. There was an inadequate health and safety management system in operation to monitor and review these arrangements
Merseyside Coating Ltd has previously been convicted of three health and safety offences under various regulations. Although the circumstances were completely different, this fact highlights the lack of suitable safety management system at the company.
Access Scaffold Tower TrainingFatal Fall Fine Upheld
The court of Appeal has turned down a construction management firm's appeal against a sentence imposed last October after a worker died when he fell 10m
FJ Chalcroft (Construction) of Kings Lynn in Norfolk had appealed against fines and costs of £340,000 handed down by Recorder Burns at Nottingham Crown Court after it admitted breaching Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act,
In November 2003, 22 year- old contractor Daniel Askew fell from the mezzanine area of a cold store under construction at Phil Hanley in Billsthorpe. Askew was part of a small team of electrical installers contracted to fit cables to the inside of the outside wall of the building. He leant on edge protection which gave way as it was not fixed at one end.
Charlcroft admitted offences under the Health and Safety at Work Act, but disputed the HSE's view that the death was in breach of its duty and argued that the extent of the offending was not as high as suggested by the prosecution. Recorder Burns conclude that the fatality was linked to the breaches. He fined the firm £80,000 for section 2(1) charge and £180,000 for 3(1) charge. On 12 March the Court of Appeal dismissed the firm's appeal to reduce the sentences.
Working At Height Points of Interest
Shattered Lives CampaignAsbestos The Hidden KillerDeaths bring JCB £466,000 PenaltyFirst Capital East pays £215,000 for depot deathColas Fined £90,000 for Hatton deathsResources for Safety Reps£200,000 fine for Edeco Petroleum for horrific drill rig death415V cable stumble engulfed worker in fireballIceland £28,500 penalty for fire failingsIn This Issue...
•
Training courses available 2008•
Shattered lives•
Health & Safety Services •
Feedback from visitorsSite specific assessment could have saved a life
City of York council has been fined £20,000 following the death of a council worker when his ride on-lawn mower overturned on sloping ground. The council had not properly assessed the risk and was not following the mower manufacturers safe operating instructions.
Frank Smith, aged 54, died on 29th May 2005 while using a Hayter ride-on mower to cut long, wet grass on an embankment at Water End in York City centre. His job was to cut the top of the embankment and then to turn the mower and tidy up an area near the bridge.
There were no witnesses, but the HSE believes that in turning the mower, Smith lost control and it slid down the sloping bank, hitting a low retaining wall at the bottom. This caused the mower to flip over, throwing him out of the driving seat.
HSE principal inspector Keith King said the council had no site-specific assessment of the risks and had failed to implement a safe system of work. There was a generic assessment dated in 1997 which meant it was already quite old. But though the assessment identified the possibility of a mower turning over with fatal consequences, the council had failed to act.
King said the main issue was the council had failed to send anyone competent to assess the degree of the slope on the embankment. At 25 degrees, this was significantly greater than the 19-degree upper limit specified in the manufacturers instruction for safe use.
The council should have identified all areas of sloping ground to ensure it was using the right equipment, and should have provided proper supervision and guidance for employees. The only warning it provided was the instruction to "take extra care when working on slopes"
At York Crown Court on April 14th, Recorder Hill fined the authority £20,000 plus £20,423 costs.
Risk Assessment SeminarDWP Pays mesothelioma sufferer £170,000
A former benefits officer has received almost £170,000 in damages after a government department exposed him to deadly asbestos dust in his office building.
The grandfather of two, who does not wish to be named, worked for the Department of Work and Pensions for 30 years before retiring in 2000. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a fatal cancer of the lining of the lungs, after being exposed to asbestos while he worked at Prestwich Unemployment Benefit Office during the late 1970s and the early 1980s. Mesothelioma is more commonly associated with heavy industries
A letter the claimant received from his department in 1984 explaining that asbestos was present throughout his office was critical to his cases success. He had kept the letter for years but did not realise that it was really a warning that he could develop a lethal disease. "It was a massive shock to be diagnosed with mesothelioma," he said. "I had no idea what it was, but when it was explained to me I immediately thought of this letter which was given to all members of staff. I feel quite angry now that they did not follow the letter up with a screening programme. They should have explained the consequences of what it meant to have asbestos in the building."
Thompson solicitors, which handled the case, said that by using the Royal Courts of Justice Fast Track procedure, it had been able to give its client piece of mind that his family will be financially secure. The procedure has an average case duration of just a few months, which allows mesothelioma sufferers to bring their cases to conclusion within their lifetime. It results in almost immediate judgement in the claimants favour where it is clear the defendant was in breach of its duty.
Tony Whitston of the Greater Manchester Asbestos Victims Support Group said the case should act as a warning to everyone responsible for buildings because it demonstrates "the shocking fact" that office workers are vulnerable to asbestos exposure if the material is not properly managed.
Asbestos Awareness SeminarSafety In Ladders & Steps cost firm £10,000
The Health and Safety Executive has warned of the importance of proper training when using ladders. The warning follows the prosecution of Carlisle Glass Ltd after an employee severed an artery when a ladder slipped and he cut himself on the broken window he was repairing.
Carlisle Glass Ltd of Crown Street, Carlisle were fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £1,100 costs after pleading guilty at Carlisle Magistrates Court to a charge under Section 2 (1) of the Health and safety at Work Etc Act 1974, that they failed to ensure the safety at work of an employee.
Ten people have died and 820 people have been seriously injured in the North West after falling from ladders between 2001 and 2006. The incident happened during the Health and Safety Executive campaign to raise awareness of ladder safety.
After the incident the company was served with four Prohibition Notices banning them from using ladders that were in poor condition and four Improvement Notices served because of safety breaches.
The court heard that on the 25 June 2007 the company sent one of its employees to repair a broken window at a property in Durranhill Road, Carlisle. The employee had removed large pieces of broken glass and was using a hacking tool and a hammer to remove the old putty from the frame when the ladder slipped and the employee severed an artery and two tendons on his left hand.
HSE Inspector, Mhairi Duffy, told the court that the ladder was not secured and the employee had not received any training in the use of ladders. The ladder was not suitable for this type of the work as the employee was unable to hold on properly while working.
HSE Inspector, Mhairi Duffy, said: "This was an entirely avoidable incident and the consequences could have been far worse. The injured person has undergone physiotherapy, but still suffers from some mobility loss and loss of grip. The injured person had not received any training in the use of ladders and in this case more suitable access equipment should have been used. This prosecution should serve as a warning of the dangers working at height and to ensure that employers take their responsibilities seriously."
Safety in the use of Ladders & StepsDemolition firm fined £10,000
A demolition firm that sent workers on to a roof without edge protection or scaffolding allowed debris and tiles to fall into a neighbouring property's garden has been fined £10,000 under the Work At Height Regulations.
In early 2007, the HSE received complaints that demolition workers were on the roof of a Worthing property without any precautions. HSE Inspector Dennis Bodger went to investigate on the morning of 21st February but no work was taking place. When he returned later in the afternoon, he found employees of Astra Demolition working at height.
"There was no edge protection around the roof or other measures to prevent people from falling." Dennis Bodger said "Two guys were up on the roof when I visited the site and we had evidence in photographs taken by a witness a few days before that two people were also up on the roof then."
He issued a prohibition notice stopping the people from working on the roof without suitable protective measures. Further investigations revealed that a lack of netting meant debris and material from the roof was falling into the garden of the NHS Trust-occupied building next door, putting patients staff and visitors at risk.
The firms boss, Mark Fowler, claimed that he had planned to put up scaffolding. This never happened and the firm let the work go ahead without it. Though Astra had done a risk assessment it was generic, said Bodger, "Didn't really address the issues properly."
Astra Demolition admitted three breaches under the Work at Height Regulations on 20th February. Worthing magistrates fined the firm £3000 under Regulation 4(1) for failing to properly plan, supervise and carry out the work safely, £3000 under Regulation 6(3) Nor not taking sufficient measures to prevent people falling and £4000 under Regulation 10(2) for failing to take suitable steps to prevent objects from falling. Astra must also pay £5839 costs
Work at Height
