 |
|
|
| Britain is one of the safest places to work |
|
This is the claim of the HSE following the release of statistics showing a drop in the number of fatalities to its lowest level ever recorded and a significant drop in serious and over 3 day injuries reported. The figures show that Britain now has the lowest rate of fatal injuries in the EU and runs at about half of the rate of the EU average.
The HSE has acknowledged the effects of the recession on the figures and has called for businesses to work hard to maintain the downwards trend. History has previously shown that when economic growth improves, the rate of work-related injuries increases; the challenge is to prevent history repeating itself.
However the outgoing chair of IOSH warns that the HSE must not become complacent and avoid taking their foot off the pedal; she is wary that there are still too many accidents and cases of workplace ill-health that could have been easily prevented.
Back to top
|
 |
| IOSH encourages employers to help keep staff fit and healthy |
|
IOSH President John Holden said that while many people will make individual resolutions to get fitter or healthier, businesses too should make New Year resolutions to help cut the number of deaths, injuries and cases of ill health caused by work.
IOSH said it was calling on businesses to make a resolution in 2010 to:
· Promote work-life balance by discouraging long working hours
· Promote good safety culture
· Clamp down on workplace bullying
· Create opportunities to enjoy a healthy lifestyle.
IOSH is also suggesting firms could help their staff to enjoy a healthier lifestyle by:
· Allowing more flexible working
· Encouraging walking or cycling to work
· Offering healthy alternatives, like fruit, at meetings and working lunches
· Promoting staff discounts at local leisure centres and health clubs
· Publishing local walk information
· Encouraging employees to set up and attend support groups or clubs, such as weight loss or sports activities.
IOSH wants employers to recognise that keeping staff fit and healthy is good business; They feel that by making this commitment the benefits will be that workers will be off much less with ill-health, they’ll be more productive, and feel valued.
Back to top
|
|
| Catalogue of safety breaches at printing factory leads to prosecution |
|
The Flitwick printing company firm Colpac Ltd and two of its directors – Terry Langton, of Huntsmead, Northampton, and Stephen Burton, of Kempston, Bedford have been fined £20,000 after an investigation into a worker’s injury exposed a series of health and safety breaches at its Bedfordshire factory.
The offences came to light when a worker at the food packaging printing factory was injured trying to release a blockage in a machine. The worker had tried to retrieve a carton which was stuck in a window patching machine when her arm was caught between two rollers and suffered bruising and cuts to her left arm.
A HSE investigation into the incident found that Colpac had failed to provide her with adequate training to use the machine. Inspectors also uncovered a series of other safety failings, including electrical safety, machinery isolation, manual handling and machinery guard checks. Five prohibition notices were served ordering the company to stop some activities until risks to workers had been addressed. Four further improvement notices were later issued requiring Colpac to tackle less pressing safety matters.
The company admitted two health and safety charges when it appeared in court and was fined £17,000 for breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, fined £3,000 for breaching Regulation 11 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) 1998, and ordered to pay £5,129 costs.
The Operations director Terry Langton admitted breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (by virtue of Section 37(1)) and was fined £3,000. Manager Steve Burton admitted breaching Section 7 of the same Act and was fined £800.
Could your organisations health and safety systems pass the scrutiny of the HSE visiting your premises? At MESH we specialise in assisting organisations to not only achieve health and safety compliance but to also improve operational systems; why not take a look at some examples?
Back to top
|
|
| Worker receives £110K in compensation following accident |
|
The man was left with multiple fractures to his left foot and ankle after a colleague reversed into him whilst driving a fork lift truck.
It was identified that the fork-lift truck’s warning sound and reversing light were not working at the time of the accident and the injured man, who was loading pallets when he was hit, was wearing ear defenders and did not hear the truck behind him.
Since the accident he has not been able to return to work at the company, based in Houghton Le Spring, and has been told that he will never be able to return to full-time employment as a driver. As a result of the accident, he has to permanently use a stick.
Following the accident he contacted his union, which instructed its lawyers Thompsons Solicitors to pursue a claim for accident compensation. The case was complicated by his employers going into administration in February 2009 but damages were secured after the employers agreed to attend mediation.
Back to top
|
|
| Global courier fined £35K following fall from a vehicle |
|
The incident happened early in the morning when the worker was nearing the end of his night shift at the depot of Tuffnells Parcels Express Ltd in Leighton Buzzard. The company has more than 600 vehicles and 25 depots in the UK.
His job involved unloading the heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) that brought parcels to the distribution centre, sorting the parcels ready for local delivery and then loading them onto the firm’s smaller delivery lorries. The incoming and outgoing vehicles were reverse parked in loading bays, connected to the sorting centre by manual loading ramps.
The court heard that he was still in the back of one of the smaller lorries when the driver unexpectedly pulled away from the loading dock. He fell from the rear of the vehicle, from a height of about four feet, and fractured his thigh bone when he landed on the ground.
Tuffnells Parcels Express Ltd was fined £35,000 and ordered to pay £5,134 in court costs at Bedfordshire Magistrates’ Court after it admitted breaching s.2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974 which covers the duty of the employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all the employees.
The HSE commenting on the case identified that the company could have put in place a simple control system to prevent the driver from pulling away from the loading bay, which would have taken little time or effort to implement and would have this accident.
Back to top
|
|
| Oil worker paralysed from the waist down |
|
The incident has led to three companies being fined a total of £283,332 after the accident at a Shell oil refinery in Cheshire.
The case related to an incident when the man was working for SG Blair and Co (now Dalprop Ltd) on a refurbishment project at the Stanlow Manufacturing Complex near Ellesmere Port. The company was removing part of the concrete lining of a “cracker” unit, where crude oil is turned into various chemical components. The worker suffered a broken back, two broken legs, a broken pelvis and other injuries when a container carrying 500kg of waste materials fell 30 feet on top of him. The court heard that the incident was caused by the materials being suspended above a walkway.
The HSE investigation found the scaffolding should have been constructed so that the lifting equipment was away from areas where people had to walk. The landing area should also have been suitably protected. The court heard that the worker had led an active life before the incident, including running two junior football clubs, but now has to use a wheelchair.
The HSE prosecuted three companies in connection with the incident. Shell UK Oil Products and Dalprop pleaded guilty to contravening regulation 8(1)(c) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998. Shell was fined £116,666 and ordered to pay costs of £16,204, and Dalprop was fined £83,333 with costs of £11,115.
Hertel UK installed the scaffolding and platforms used for the project. The company pleaded guilty to contravening s.3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974 which covers the duty of the employer to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that affected non-employees are not exposed to risks to their health or safety. The company was fined £83,333 and ordered to pay costs of £16,204.
Back to top
|
|
| Agency workers receive chemical burns following an accident |
|
The two agency workers suffered the burns whilst using unsuitable tooling to mix chemicals at an adhesive factory; neither had received suitable training in the task. The men had been told to mix two solvents to create an adhesive used to make PVC.
The men chose to use an electrical mixer (which was designed for another task) and when they began mixing the flammable vapour above, the liquid ignited; sending a flame shooting upwards. This set fire to one of the workers high viz tabards and both men ended up with minor burns to their faces.
The subsequent HSE investigation led to the inspector issuing a prohibition notice banning the work and ordering the company to carry out a full risk assessment as required under the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 (DSEAR). The inspector concluded had there been a suitable risk assessment and a safe system of work then this accident would have been avoided.
The company admitted a breach of the DSEAR regulations and was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,500.
Do you have any processes that could fall under the DSEAR requirements for specialist risk assessment? Why not take a look at some of the wide variety of companies that we have assisted across the U.K. to achieve DSEAR compliance.
Back to top
|
| Company slated by court over a “truly horrendous” death |
|
The rice manufacturing company of Rochester, Kent was fined £140,000 and ordered to pay costs of £20,500 at Maidstone Crown Court. This occurred after a worker was trapped for hours inside a conveyor and subsequently died of shock.
The man was monitoring a rice silo which contained an underground screw conveyor to transport the rice to the production line. He noticed that the rice was emptying at a slower rate then normal and so entered the silo to check for a blockage gaining access through a side door; this should have been locked off but was not. When he stepped onto the rice he sank and was dragged into the conveyor; colleagues tried to reverse the conveyor but were unable to release his leg.
The emergency services spent a number of hours trying to release him; but were eventually forced to amputate his leg. He subsequently died from shock whilst being transferred to hospital.
The HSE commenting on the case identified that if the company had fitted a simple padlock to the access hatch costing only a few pounds then this tragic accident could have been avoided.
Back to top |
|
|
|
| Company fined £4,500 after tele-handler overturns, injuring worker |
|
A construction company from Gateshead has been ordered to pay £4,500 after one of its workers was seriously injured when a forklift truck tele-handler he was operating overturned. The HSE prosecuted Meldrum Construction Services Ltd following the incident at its site at Holly Hall, Northumberland.
The court heard that the worker was lifting roof trusses onto the roof of the development when the forklift truck tele-handler that he was operating overturned. The machine fell onto its side throwing him against the machine’s window and controls. It was found that he was not trained to use the machine and was not wearing a seat belt when the incident happened. He suffered multiple fractures to his right arm, leaving him with limited mobility in his shoulder. He still requires medical treatment and is unable to return to his job.
The company had produced a risk assessment and a system of work for lifting the roof trusses, but it was found that neither was sufficient, and had failed to identify the dangers that workers would face. This incident identifies to companies the importance of ensuring that they have access to competent health and safety advice.
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Thank you for reading this edition of our email newsletter. Please do feel free to pass it onto colleagues, who can also subscribe for free via our web site.
All information supplied to us in order for you to receive our newsletters is protected by our privacy policy.
If you would like to send feedback or ask us anything at all about health and safety, please do contact us. We are always happy to give no-obligation advice.
If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter please just reply to this email with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line. |
|
|
