Safety Matters - August 2006

This newsletter is available on free subscription only and is our way of keeping you informed about developments in Health and Safety. To review or amend your subscription details, please see the notes at the end.

In this issue:

The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill has finally been published

Insurance experts warn construction companies that Sunburn claims could be a big liability threat

HSE construction blitz found that most sites visited were engaging in potentially life-threatening working practices

Company fined following a fire and dust explosion

Revised guidance on risk assessments has been published by the Health and Safety Executive

Doctors identify a dramatic rise in the number of employees signing off sick for seven days or more and conclude that employers are to blame

Lack of foot protection loses gardener a toe in workplace accident

Supermarket fined after employee fell from the back of a delivery truck

The TUC has warned employers that they may be breaking the law if they fail to protect workers from the effects of extreme heat

The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill has finally been published

Under the new criminal offence of corporate manslaughter outlined in the Bill, the courts will be able to consider the overall picture of how an organisation's activities were managed by senior management rather than focusing on the actions of a single individual.

An organisation will be guilty of the new offence if someone has been killed as a result of the gross failure of a company's senior managers for example to:

• Ensure safe working practices for their employees (e.g. that staff are properly trained and equipment is in a safe condition); or
• Maintain the safety of their premises (e.g. ensuring that lifts are properly maintained and fire precautions taken).

The Bill also lifts Crown immunity for the first time, meaning that Crown bodies - such as Government departments - along with other public sector organisations will be on an equal footing with private companies when carrying out similar activities.

The new offence will be clearly linked to the standards required under existing health and safety laws.

Are your company's safety systems up to scratch or are you risking prosecution? At MESH we have extensive experience of helping companies to improve their health and safety and in many cases improve their competitiveness.


Back to top

Insurance experts warn construction companies that Sunburn claims could be a big liability threat

Insurance broker Aon claims that skin cancer caused by long-term sun exposure could generate huge employer's liability claims in the future. It estimated that the risk could become as big an issue as asbestos, claims for which are expected to amount to £20 billion over coming decades.

Nick Geary, team leader at Aon Construction Direct, said: "As temperatures soar this summer, builders need to think realistically about protecting their employees from the potential cancerous effects of working out in the sun all day."

He advises that employers should be including sun protection in their health and safety policy, as companies will be able to defend a claim more effectively if a former employee tries to prove negligence for their illness. If they do develop cancer there's every chance it would come back to the employer years down the line.


Back to top

HSE construction blitz found that most sites visited were engaging in potentially life-threatening working practices

In June, HSE inspectors inspected 19 construction sites in Cleethorpes and Grimsby and ordered work to be stopped on 17 occasions to prevent dangerous work that could have resulted in workers falling and being seriously injured or killed.

The findings have led to strengthened calls from union Amicus to reverse the reduction in the number of HSE safety inspections and safety inspectors that has occurred in recent years.

These findings confirm Amicus' view that regular safety inspections are essential because the HSE inspectors found such dangerous working practices that in one day they stopped work 17 times on 19 sites. They question how many of these situations would have resulted in serious injury or death if the HSE had not carried out these all-too-infrequent inspections?

This is an answer that will never be known, but Amicus identify that we do know that inspections are the only way to ensure safety, particularly on small construction sites like those targeted in June.

The HSE produces plenty of useful guidance on how employers can ensure their workers are in safe conditions, but guidance is no substitute for an expectation that if you work unsafely, you risk being caught.



Back to top

Company fined £70,000 and ordered to pay costs of £77,046 following a fire and dust explosion

At Liverpool Crown Court the company pleaded guilty to a charge under s.2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 in that it failed to ensure the safety of all its employees, including John Henry Thomas, who was seriously injured.

Mr Thomas suffered blast injuries to both lungs, rib fractures, a head injury, fractures to his neck vertebrae and an injury to the left elbow. The explosion also placed at risk other employees and caused substantial damage to the premises.

The prosecution was the fourth successful HSE prosecution against Sonae since it opened its Knowsley premises in 2000.

HSE inspector Tim Beaumont said that the safety risk stemmed from a problem in the design and construction of the factory, with Sonae not taking an overall view of safety in connection with the manufacturing process. The production line was made up of sections designed and installed by different suppliers and there was a failure to manage properly the risks and ensure everything was put together correctly.

In June 2002, when some smouldering material entered the production line, it caused a fire that was able to spread through the entire production line. This shows the need to carry out careful assessments of risk and the need to think about the how to manage the risks across the whole production line.


Back to top

Revised guidance on risk assessments has been published by the Health and Safety Executive

Five Steps to Risk Assessment was originally issued in 1993 but it has now been updated and simplified to make it easier for companies to use. The guidance places the emphasis on making sure that decisions are actually put into practice.

The guidance looks at each step in detail and includes some frequently asked questions.

Launching the guidance, HSE deputy chief executive Jonathan Rees said: "We want to save lives, not tie businesses up in red tape - good risk assessment is the way to achieve this. Risk assessment is at the heart of sensible health and safety. We believe it should be a practical way of protecting people from real harm and suffering, not a bureaucratic back-covering exercise. On its own, paperwork never saved a life, it needs to be a means to an end, resulting in actions that protect people in practice."

The HSE hope the new straightforward guidance will help managers understand what's expected of them and get more focus on the kind of risks that cause real harm and suffering - the ones that killed 220 workers last year and resulted in 35 million working days being lost.

The five steps covers the requirements for risk assessment as required by the Management Regulations, it does not cover the more detailed assessments required under specific legislation, such as working at height, manual handling, COSHH etc.

If risk assessment still a mystery to you, MESH have assisted companies from all environments to address their risk assessments and trained staff to take responsibility for this ongoing process. Please take a look at some examples.



Back to top

Doctors identify a dramatic rise in the number of employees signing off sick for seven days or more and conclude that employers are to blame

Norwich Union Healthcare's Health of the Workplace report questioned employers and GPs across the UK. Ninety four per cent of the doctors polled blamed employers for the increase in sickness absence, accusing them of failing to take responsibility for the health and wellbeing of their workers.

Forty two per cent of the employers surveyed said they had struggled with key members of staff being absent for long periods of time leading to overstretched teams and resentment amongst employees. The most common health problems reported were stress (76 per cent), back problems (63 per cent) and depression (57 per cent).

However, the research revealed a worrying lack of investment in the health of employees - just 38 per cent of those surveyed viewed employee wellbeing as a HR priority while 40 per cent ignored it completely as they did not have any system in place for health management. Alarmingly, 70 per cent of companies surveyed simply did not view employees' health as their responsibility.

With the Government looking to reform sickness benefits through the Welfare Reform Bill, GPs and employers will be under increasing pressure to act in this area. Norwich Union Healthcare has warned companies to address the issue of employees' health to avoid the damaging effect of rising sickness and absence rates.


Back to top

Lack of foot protection loses gardener a toe in workplace accident

The gardener's big toe was severed by a hover mower at a Devon hotel. The hotel admitted it had not carried out risk assessment for gardening work or had it provided safety footwear for the task.

The hotel pleaded guilty and was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,848 by the court.

The hotel in mitigation said it had carried out risk assessments for other activities within the hotel.


Back to top

Supermarket fined after employee fell from the back of a delivery truck

Morrisons received an £18,000 fine and was ordered to pay costs of £8,156 by Solihll magistrates. The court heard that staff had been working in almost complete darkness to unload stock from the delivery vehicle. They were using a pallet truck to move the stock as the scissor lift had been blocked in by stock and was therefore unusable.

The company were charged with 9 offences under section 2 of the HSWA 1974, relating to its failures to provide; a safe system of working, training, adequate storage space, adequate lighting, or a suitable and sufficient risk assessment.


Back to top

The TUC has warned employers that they may be breaking the law if they fail to protect workers from the effects of extreme heat

Although UK law does not stipulate a maximum workplace temperature, health and safety regulations dictate that employers must ensure that the inside temperature is "reasonable" during working hours.

If conditions become too hot then employers must take action to reduce the heat - for example, by introducing air conditioning or fans, providing plenty of cold drinking water, moving staff away from windows, or allowing them to dress down.

If employers fail to keep workplaces cool, they could be liable if a member of staff falls ill due to heat or sustains an accident at work because they are feeling tired or faint, the TUC warns.

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: "Whilst most sensible employers will be doing their utmost to keep their staff cool in the oppressive heat, there will always be some too mean to do anything to bring their office or shop temperatures down.

'Bosses who fail to adopt the cool work approach risk damaging their firms' productivity as their employees wilt in the heat. They also increase their chances of ending up in court, because someone has fallen ill or has had an accident because it got too hot. Employers clearly cannot control the weather, but there is much they can do to keep staff cool, and a clear maximum temperature would make a real difference."

Have you consider the environment your staff are working in as part of your risk assessments and health and safety policies? If you need help why not give us a call.


Back to top