This article appeared in the Safety & Health Practitioner newsletter, February 2011.
Brought to you by Sphere Health and Safety Peterborough.

A health and safety manager who suffered serious burns when a can of solvent exploded has received a suspended prison sentence for putting other workers at risk.

Chelmsford Crown Court heard that Phillip Dutton, 41, was responsible for health and safety at metal distributor, South Essex Stockholders Ltd. On 3 February 2009, he was burning the contents of a skip at the firm’s depot in Vanguard Way, Shoebury in order to compact the waste.

He asked a junior member of staff to fetch a can of surface cleaner so he could pour it into the flames as an accelerant. When he poured the solvent into the fire, it ignited and caused the can to explode and shower him with the substance. He suffered serious burns across his body and spent four months in hospital receiving treatment, including skin grafts.

Risks should have been realised

Southend-on-Sea Borough Council environmental health officer, Dan Jarvis, told SHP there was a culture of adding accelerants when burning waste in skips at the site, and Dutton had not identified the risks associated with adding flammable substances to fires. He said: “As health and safety manager, Mr Dutton should have realised the risks associated with adding flammable solvents to a fire. He put other workers at risk by carrying out this action and by allowing this practice to be carried out at the site. Furthermore, our investigation found that there were inadequate procedures in place to ensure that hazardous substances were stored in a safe place.”

Dutton appeared in court on 15 February and pleaded guilty to breaching s7 of the HSWA 1974. He was given a four-month prison sentence, which has been suspended for two years. He was also ordered to pay £5000 towards costs.

In mitigation, Dutton, who now resides in Cyprus, admitted that he had been foolish to add the solvent to the fire. He urged the judge to be lenient with his sentence as he has already suffered significantly from his own mistake. His employer, South Essex Stockholders Ltd, was found guilty on 9 December of breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 19.

This article appeared in the Safety & Health Practitioner newsletter, February 2011.
Brought to you by Sphere Health and Safety Peterborough.

The HSE is undertaking a nationwide round of inspections on construction sites in a bid to reduce the toll of death and injury in the sector.

The blitz, which is now in its fifth year, will focus heavily on refurbishment and maintenance activities. The latest annual health and safety statistics revealed that nearly three-quarters of the 42 construction deaths last year (2009/10) related to these types of tasks.

During the unannounced visits – which start today (14 February) – HSE inspectors will check that sites are managing work at height safely, that they are in good order to avoid trips and falls, and that walkways and stairs are free from obstruction. They will also monitor whether equipment is correctly installed, maintained and used.

In March last year, inspectors visited 2414 contractors at 2014 sites across Britain. A total of 691 enforcement notices was issued at 470 sites, with inspectors issuing orders to stop work immediately in 359 cases – either because of unsafe work at height, or because sites lacked good order.

HSE’s chief inspector of construction, Philip White, said: “This will be the fifth year that we have run the inspection initiative across Britain and we anticipate that there will be examples of both good and bad practice – those where employers are taking all the measures they can to protect their workers, and those where safety is way down the list of priorities.

Lax attitude to health and safety

“A lax attitude to health and safety in one of the more dangerous industries is not acceptable, especially when many of the incidents are completely avoidable by taking common-sense actions and precautions. As we’ve demonstrated in previous years, we will not hesitate to take action if we find poor practice that is putting the lives of workers at risk.”

The construction-site crackdown will also enable HSE inspectors to highlight the dangers of asbestos. The Executive was recently criticised for apparently shelving plans to run an award-winning asbestos awareness campaign aimed at construction workers and other tradespeople.

The HSE said it was taking stock of the campaign, and stressed that it would “continue to make tackling asbestos a priority, both in terms of our communications activity and our enforcement work”.

Commenting on how the refurbishment blitz would help raise awareness of the risks of asbestos, White said: “This year, as part of ensuring risks from asbestos are properly managed, we will also be checking that, where appropriate, asbestos surveys have been carried out prior to any refurbishment work.

“Many workers believe that, because asbestos has been banned as a building material, it’s no longer a threat to them, but that simply isn’t true. Any premises built or refurbished before 2000 could contain asbestos.”

This article appeared in the Safety & Health Practitioner newsletter, February 2011.
Brought to you by Sphere Health and Safety Peterborough.

The first company to stand trial under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 has been fined £385,000 after being found guilty by the jury at Winchester Crown Court.

The conviction of Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd came after a two-week trial at the court, where the company answered charges by the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to the death of employee Alexander Wright on 5 September 2008.

In handing down the sentence on 17 February, the judge confirmed the company could pay the fine over a 10-year stretch, with £38,500 due every year of that period. The company does not have to pay any costs.

Mr Wright, 27, had been left working alone in a 3.5m-deep trench to ‘finish up’ after the managing director of Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings, Peter Eaton (pictured centre), left for the day.

A short time later, the trench collapsed on Mr Wright and buried him. On hearing his cry for help, one of the plot-owners called the emergency services while another ran to the trench where he found Mr Wright buried up to his head. He climbed into the trench and removed some of the soil to enable the junior geologist to breathe, but a further torrent of earth fell into the pit, covering Mr Wright completely. Despite the plot-owner’s best efforts to free him, Mr Wright died of asphyxiation.

Manslaughter charge

Peter Eaton had originally been charged with manslaughter by gross negligence, as well as a health and safety offence, in his own capacity but these charges were dropped after a successful application by his defence team last October on the grounds of his poor health. The company also originally faced a separate health and safety offence, but this was dropped by the prosecution in January this year after the judge raised the issue of whether the two different burdens of proof for the two remaining charges might confuse a jury.

This article appeared in the Safety & Health Practitioner newsletter, February 2011.
Brought to you by Sphere Health and Safety Peterborough.

A safety trainer has been prosecuted by local authorities for failing to implement safe work-at-height practices during a demonstration.

Steven Roadknight, who traded as Safety Train UK Ltd, was contracted to deliver rope-escape training at Kuehne+Nagel’s transportation depot. He was training staff how to escape from a Very Narrow Aisle (VNA) lift truck, which are used to stock shelves in narrow aisles. If the machine breaks down the only way to escape is to climb over the cab and descend to the floor.

As part of the training he asked one of the workers to practise an emergency escape from the vehicle. She was instructed to climb on to the cab and then attach herself to a rope, which had a descender lever, and lower herself down to the ground. But Roadknight did not attach a safety rope to her that he could control in case anything went wrong. When she began lowering herself to the ground she pulled too hard on the descender lever and plummeted 12 feet to the ground. She sprained both of her ankles, and sustained bruising to her back, and serious rope burns.

Failure to provide safety equipment

Birmingham City Council environmental health officer James Rudman, who investigated the incident, told SHP that Roadknight had also failed to provide a safety helmet for the demonstration.

EHO Rudman said: “The injured employee was extremely lucky to not have been more seriously injured. Failing to use a safety rope and helmets could quite easily have resulted in this being a fatal incident. I was pleased that the court agreed and supported our actions.”

Roadknight appeared at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court on 28 January and pleaded guilty to breaching s37 of the HSWA 1974. He was fined £500 and ordered to pay £1500 towards costs.

Mitigation

In mitigation, Roadknight said he had no previous convictions and had entered an early guilty plea. He asked the court to take into account his limited financial means as the company is no longer trading.

Following the hearing, Councillor Neil Eustace commented: “I am pleased that the magistrates recognised the seriousness of the offence. My officers will continue to take action where businesses and individuals fail to comply with minimum health and safety standards.”

This article appeared in the Safety & Health Practitioner newsletter, February 2011.
Brought to you by Sphere Health and Safety Peterborough.

An engineering firm has been fined after a worker’s hand got caught in an unguarded drilling machine.

The incident took place at B&B Ltd’s factory on Dobson Parkway in Ince, Lancashire on 24 September 2009. A 46-year-old worker, who wishes not to be named, was using an industrial drilling machine to drill holes in an iron bar.

In order to move the piece of metal into a different position the worker switched off the drill, but it took 30 seconds to stop, the court heard. As he reached across to switch the machine back on, the drill was still moving and the glove on his right hand got caught in the rotating mechanism, which pulled his hand into the machine. His index finger was severed below the first joint, his middle finger was badly cut, and his ring finger was dislocated.

HSE inspector Adam McMahon, revealed the incident could have been avoided if the machine had a guard around the blade to prevent access to dangerous parts. He said: “A worker has suffered a life-long injury to his right hand because B&B Group did not make sure basic health and safety measures were in place at its Wigan factory.

Injuries could have been avoided

“If there had been a guard around the rotating drill at the factory then the worker’s injuries would almost certainly have been avoided. This case highlights how important it is for manufacturers to make sure the health and safety of staff is their top priority.”

B&B Ltd appeared in court on 21 January and pleaded guilty to breaching reg.11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, for failing to take measures to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery. It was fined £12,500 and ordered to pay costs of £1703. The company had no previous convictions.

Following the hearing, Inspector McMahon added: “Manufacturers who fail to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery are breaking the law and we will continue to take enforcement action against them.”

This article appeared in the Safety & Health Practitioner newsletter, February 2011.
Brought to you by Sphere Health and Safety Peterborough.

A local council has admitted failing to take steps to protect a worker who developed a severe form of hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS).

The maintenance worker joined Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council in 1984 and regularly used heavy-duty vibrating equipment, including pneumatic drills and hand-held grinders.

In July 2005, the worker began suffering pain in his hands and was diagnosed with the early stages of the condition. He was recommended for annual assessments but, despite being reassessed in 2006, was not seen again by a doctor until 2009. During this period the council allowed him to operate vibrating equipment on a regular basis. The worker’s health deteriorated to such an extent that he now has difficulty picking up small objects, and his hands become very painful in cold weather.

Following his assessment in 2009, his condition was reported to the HSE who began an investigation. HSE inspector, Chris Goddard, said: “The worker was first diagnosed as developing HAVS in 2005 but the council failed to take any significant action for nearly four years to stop the condition getting worse.

“It should have limited the amount of time he spent using vibrating equipment, or provided alternative tools. Instead, he was allowed to continue with his job without any changes.

“If this action had been taken, the worker’s condition could have been prevented from becoming serious. Instead, he has suffered a permanent loss of movement to his hands.”

The council, which is now part of Cheshire East Council, appeared at South Cheshire Magistrates’ Court in Crewe on 21 January and pleaded guilty to breaching reg. 5(1) and reg. 6(1) of the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005, for exposing an employee to the risk of vibration without having a suitable risk assessment in place, and failing to reduce or eliminate the risk of exposure. It was fined a total of £5300 and ordered to pay £5860 towards costs.

The council pleaded guilty

Following the hearing a spokesman from the council said: “The council pleaded guilty to both charges and accepts the findings of the HSE. However we are pleased that the council’s full cooperation in the investigation and our clean health and safety record was recognised by the court.

“It is also important to note that since Cheshire East Council was formed we have been commended by the HSE on our work around hand and arm vibration.”

This article appeared in the Safety & Health Practitioner newsletter, February 2011.
Brought to you by Sphere Health and Safety Peterborough.

A demolition company has appeared in court for failing to provide its employees with a safe system of work during the bulldozing of a block of garages.

H. Cope and Sons Ltd was contracted to demolish around 1100 council-owned garages across Lincolnshire. The garages, which were used by council-house tenants, were deemed structurally unsafe and were being knocked down in order for new garages to be built.

On 13 January 2009, two contractors from H. Cope and Sons were demolishing a block of 21 garages at Walmsgate Place in Grimsby, when one of the workers fell through a garage roof. The garages, which were situated on a slope, were split into groups of three with a step on the roof joining each set with the next group.

One of the men removed the asbestos flashing, which covered the steps, and leant over the edge of the building to drop the sheets into a skip. But he lost his balance and fell backwards through the remaining roof sheets, landing on the ground seven feet below. He broke his right leg and wrist, which has required him to undergo several operations to insert pins and plates into the limbs. He has been unable to return to work owing to his injuries.

HSE inspector, Dave Bradley, told SHP that the firm had prepared a method statement, which indicated that the work should be done from a tower scaffold. However this had not been communicated to the men, who subsequently created their own method of work without any supervision.

Devastating impact

Inspector Bradley said: “This incident has had a devastating and long-term impact on the man involved. Sadly, it was also totally avoidable. Demolition work needs to be properly planned and supervised, regardless of the size.”

H. Cope and Sons appeared at Grimsby Magistrates’ Court on 19 January and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £3571 in costs.

In mitigation, the firm said it had no previous convictions and it fully cooperated with the HSE’s investigation. It has also hired a new health and safety consultant, who has reviewed the company’s systems of work and communications of these methods.

This article appeared in the Safety & Health Practitioner newsletter, January 2011.
Brought to you by Sphere Health and Safety Peterborough.

A young worker suffered life-changing injuries when his hand became trapped in an industrial press, a court heard.

The 20-year-old was working at metal-forming company JKL Industrial Services Ltd when the incident took place at the firm’s factory in Goscote, Walsall, on 28 October 2009. He was working as a machine operative and was using a power press to punch shapes out of strips of steel, to form components that are sold to the automotive industry.

As he fed a sheet of steel through the machine his left hand got caught in a trapping point between the puncher and a stripper plate. He suffered serious injuries to his hand, which resulted in his middle and ring fingers being amputated at the first joint.

Brief training

The HSE learned that the worker had only received brief training on how to use the machine and there was no guarding around the trapping point. As a result, the company was issued a Prohibition Notice on 21 December 2009, which required the machine to be taken out of use until adequate guards were installed. An Improvement Notice was also issued stating that the machine needed to be subjected to regular safety inspections once it had returned to service.

HSE inspector Eve-Marie Edwards said: “This young man has suffered permanent and debilitating injuries from an incident that should never have happened.

“JKL Industrial Services did not provide adequate guarding for the power press, failed to maintain the machine properly, and failed also to ensure it was thoroughly examined by a competent person.

“Furthermore, the company had not given the worker sufficient information, instruction, training or supervision to operate the power press safely.”

Pleaded guilty

JKL Industrial Services appeared at Walsall Magistrates’ Court on 17 January 2011 and pleaded guilty to breaching reg. 11 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The company was fined £5000 and ordered to pay £2534 in costs.

In mitigation, the firm said it had no previous convictions and entered an early guilty plea. The company is experiencing financial difficulties and asked the magistrates to consider its lack of means during sentencing. The machine remains out of service, as it has still not had adequate guards fitted

This article appeared in the Safety & Health Practitioner newsletter, January 2011.
Brought to you by Sphere Health and Safety Peterborough.

The number of violent incidents at work last year totalled 677,000, according to the 2009/10 British Crime Survey – a rise of 8 per cent on the previous year’s sum.

But despite the increase, fewer workers experienced an incident of violence – 318,000 compared with 327,000 in 2008/09. The figures are presented in an HSE analysis of work-related violence in England and Wales, based on findings from the 2009/10 British Crime Survey (BCS).

The fact that there have been fewer victims but a greater number of incidents could be attributed to a rise in the proportion of victims who experienced more than one incident of violence.

Repeat Victims

An estimated 43 per cent of all people assaulted or threatened at work were repeat victims – up from 36 per cent in 2008/09. A quarter experienced three or more incidents of workplace violence during 2009/10, and a further 17 per cent experienced two incidents.

When looking at the consequences of violence at work, the BCS found 37 per cent of total physical assaults at work – of which there were 310,000 – resulted in injury. This is a significantly lower proportion than in the previous year, in which 47 per cent of assaults resulted in injury of some kind.

The HSE concludes that the overall risk of being a victim of actual or threatened violence at work is low. As in 2008/09, the BCS indicates that 1.4 per cent of working adults were the victims of one or more violent incidents at work.

The most risky occupations have not changed either, with 9 per cent of police officers – the group most at risk of attack – having experienced one or more incidents of actual, or threatened violence during the year. Others at risk include health professionals, at 3.8 per cent, and social-care professionals, at 2.6 per cent.

UNISON is calling for employers to enforce better safety measures to stop the growing number of repeat attacks and for tougher legal action to be taken against attackers.

The union’s general secretary, Dave Prentis, said: “It is shocking that hard-working health and social workers remain the top targets for assaults. They should not be fearing for their safety at the start of a shift.

“Violence at work has more than doubled in a decade – government plans for severe public-sector cuts can only make it worse for staff and patients.”

The full analysis from the HSE can be downloaded here: http://news.hse.gov.uk/2011/01/20/violence-at-work-latest-publication/

Competent Health & Safety Advice

The Benefits of competent Health & Safety Advice are:

1. Enhance your reputation
2. Safety advice that is pragmatic and realistic
3. Reduce workforce lost time accidents
4. Reduce workforce ill health
5. Reduced insurnace premiums
6. Increased productivity
7. Guaranteed workforce productivity
8. Reduced production downtime
9. Educate your workforce
10. Be confident that your staff make the right Health & Safety decisions
11. Realistic Occupational Health Solutions

A professional health and safety Peterborough company will allow a client to have a designated Health and Safety competent person on-site and will tailor the service to their specific requirements.

Whether working for half a day per week or more, the Fully Managed service provides your company with your own health and safety professional  on-site for an agreed time period. It allows you to determine your safety budget and to improve voids within your safety management system

The Fully Managed service works well where an ongoing presence is required to instigate and maintain a Health and Safety Peterborough programme, change perceptions or manage medium to high risk.  The service is offered from half a day per month up to three days per week and can be a very cost competitive solution compared to hiring a person full-time.