|
|
Welcome to the September 2010 edition of the MESH Consultants Safety Matters email newsletter. 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 …
Survey identifies employees hide health concerns
HSE issues new safety advice on electric gates
Director duties evaluation seen as flawed
Fines for breaches of fire safety regulations reach record levels
Worker compensated £90,000 after his arm was caught in a printing press
Fatalities fall to record low
Worker dies during demolition at boarding school
Worker burned after vapours from a can of thinners were ignited
Failure to follow safety advice leads to death and a £140,000 fine
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.
|
|
Survey identifies employees hide health concerns |
Research has highlighted the lack of communication between employees and their bosses, claiming that most workers said they would avoid revealing a health problem or personal issue to their employers. According to the study by Aviva UK Health, only 4% of workers would tell their employers about a health concern.
Also, many employees would prefer suffering in silence to sharing a concern with other people at work, with just 5% claiming they may confide in a colleague. The ‘Health of the Workplace’ study showed that in comparison as many as 60% would reveal their problems to their partner, while 33% would share them with their doctor.
Although for a number of people it is just a matter of safeguarding their privacy, the lack of the communication between the employer and employee could negatively affect a firm or an organisation as well as hamper employee well-being. The survey found almost a quarter (21%) of workers believe disclosing their health issues could affect their work prospects.
However, employers think they are doing enough to address their staff’s problems, with 39% saying that they try their best to identify employee issues.
Clearly if employees are not disclosing such information then this will hinder an employer’s ability to intervene early and offer their employees the right support at the right time. Also where this happens, the employers risk assessments are unlikely to identify suitable and sufficient controls to prevent harm occurring. |
Back to top |
|
|
|
HSE issues new safety advice on electric gates |
The HSE published the new safety advice following the recent deaths of two children.
On 28 June 2010, Semelia Campbell, 6, died when she was crushed by electric gates in Manchester. A few days later on 3 July, Karolina Golabek, 5, was also crushed to death by electric gates in Bridgend, South Wales.
While the police and HSE investigations continue into both deaths, the HSE does want to make it clear to installers that they must take action to prevent pedestrians from becoming trapped in electric gates.
Installers, designers, maintenance firms and manufacturers of electric gates are being urged to seriously consider the new safety advice, which points out that limiting the closing forces of gates alone will not provide sufficient protection to meet the relevant standards; installers must fit additional safeguards to gates in public areas.
The HSE has warned that when manufacturing, designing or installing electric gates, it’s crucial to consider who will be in the area when it’s operating. If the general public can access the gate, then additional protections should be in place. These additional protections can be in the form of creating safe distances, installing fixed guards, limiting the forces or installing sensitive protective equipment, among others.
The new advice also reminds those in control of the maintenance of electric gates to regularly review their risk assessments, taking account of any changes to the operating conditions or environment.
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
Director duties evaluation seen as flawed |
The construction union UCATT has expressed concerns that the HSE/IoD report on the voluntary code is flawed and has been based on data that does not account for organisations with less than 5 employees. This, the union identifies, excludes most of the companies in the construction industry.
The report itself makes no recommendations on director’s duties and the union feels that if companies are not compelled to do something they won’t.
The Unite union has also expressed disappointment at the findings that the HSE/IoD guidance appears to have little effect on director’s behaviour, despite its heavy promotion. |
Back to top |
|
|
|
Fines for breaches of fire safety regulations reach record levels |
It has been identified that London courts ordered companies to pay more than £1 million in fines in 2009, in relation to breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order. The brigade has commented that this shows how seriously the courts are taking the legislation.
The brigade is warning persons responsible for premises that compliance with fire safety regulations is not optional and that where breaches are found as part of their inspection programme then action will be taken.
High profile cases in 2009 included Shell International being fined £300,000 and New Look fashion fined £500,000. In two cases people were given jail sentences.
This year has seen Tesco fined £95,000 and ordered to pay £24,000 costs for breaches in relation to a store in Barnet; where an investigation found that the store had failed to review its fire risk assessment and were not maintaining safe escape routes.
Does your business have an up-to-date fire risk assessment or are you at risk of prosecution? At MESH we have extensive experience of helping companies to improve their fire safety and ensure they are in compliance with the regulations. |
Back to top |
|
|
|
Worker compensated £90,000 after his arm was caught in a printing press |
A printer recently received £90,000 in compensation after he broke his forearm in two places and fractured his elbow when his arm was caught in a printing press.
The worker from Herefordshire, a member of the union Unite, had more than 20 years’ experience working for the packaging company when the accident happened.
A faulty camera in a printing press meant that, as he was setting it up to apply different colours to plastic packaging, he had to put his hand behind the plastic to check the colours against his skin. As he put his left hand behind the plastic, the sticky material caught his arm and it was dragged down in and around the roll-up to shoulder level.
He was taken by ambulance to hospital where he underwent an emergency operation on his elbow.
Seven days later, he had to undergo another operation when two plates were inserted into his arm.
The union’s lawyers, Thompsons Solicitors, made the claim for compensation as due to the accident, the man has been left with a long-term disability which will significantly affect his earning capacity in the future. |
Back to top |
|
|
|
Fatalities fall to record low |
The number of people killed at work in Britain has fallen to a record low of 151 in 2009/10; this is down from 178 the previous year (which itself was 31% lower than the average of the previous 5 years).
However, the HSE has sent out a message identifying that there must be continued efforts to drive these numbers down further and that we must not get complacent about what has been achieved.
More information on the HSE statistics can be found at www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm |
Back to top |
|
|
|
Worker dies during demolition at boarding school |
A Shropshire boarding school has been fined £25,000 after a worker was killed while demolishing a building on the site. Moor Park School of Moor Park in Ludlow pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. As well as the fine it was also ordered to pay £15,000 in costs.
The HSE prosecuted Moor Park Charitable Trust Ltd which runs Moor Park School, after it arranged for a team of inexperienced building workers to demolish a large wooden classroom in 2007.
The HSE investigation revealed the workers had no effective plan in place and removed integral supports within the classroom’s structure, causing the roof to collapse while five men were inside. One of the men suffocated when the roof, which weighed 2.4 tonnes, fell on top of him. The four other men survived without serious injury thanks to the chance positioning of a dumper which was parked inside part of the building, creating an escape route.
Shrewsbury Crown Court heard that Moor Park School had arranged for a self-employed general building worker, who was undertaking some minor roofing work on the site, to carry out the work. He asked four other self-employed building workers to assist in the demolition even though none of them had training or relevant experience. The school failed to make any reasonable enquiries into the competence of the men to undertake the demolition work prior to the work beginning.
The HSE has commented that the deceased and the other workers should not have been put at such increased risk. Had Moor Park School taken reasonable steps to properly consider the demolition work, they would have appointed a competent and experienced contractor, and avoided the roof collapse. |
Back to top |
|
|
|
Worker burned after vapours from a can of thinners were ignited |
Fluorocarbon Bakeware Systems Ltd has been fined £10,000 after a worker received 60 per cent burns following an explosion at a Nottingham factory.
Nottingham Magistrates Court heard that the worker who was a welder at the factory was cutting metal, when a spark ignited vapours from a nearby can of thinner. The can exploded, showering him with hot liquid.
The HSE, which brought the prosecution against the company, found that although flammable liquids were stored correctly in other parts of the site, there was no provision for the storage of the thinners in this area and that no risk assessment had been carried out.
The HSE inspector identified that the incident was entirely preventable had simple precautions been taken. It was only by chance that his colleague had left the work area a few moments earlier otherwise he too could have been injured. The investigation undertaken showed that there was little in the way of direct supervision of the work and no risk assessment was undertaken for the activities carried out in the workshop.
Employers need to understand that thinners are highly flammable and a risk assessment should have shown how it should have been stored safety. If a DSEAR assessment had been completed then suitable controls would have been identified and this incident could have been avoided.
Fluorocarbon Bakeware Systems Ltd pleaded guilty to contravening regulations 5(1) and 6(1) of the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 and was fined £10,000 at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court. It was also ordered to pay costs of £5,227.
Do you use or store flammable substances in your operations and have you undertaken a DSEAR assessment? If you need assistance at MESH we have extensive experience of helping companies across the UK to address this sometimes complicated issue. |
Back to top |
|
|
|
Failure to follow safety advice leads to death and a £140,000 fine |
A plastics manufacturing company has been fined £140,000 and ordered to pay £10,588 in costs following a fatal accident at its site in Rochdale.
The incident occurred because the company had ignored safety advice which had warned that the practice of double stacking pallets of polypropylene bags outside was dangerous. The deceased was cleaning spills in the yard when a pallet collapsed and fell on top of him trapping him under one and a half tonnes of materials. He died at the scene as a result of crushing injuries.
The investigation identified that it was likely that one of the bags on the corner of the pallet had split which caused the stack to become unstable and to fall on top of the man.
The HSE investigation identified that the company, TS (UK) Ltd did not treat the health and safety of its workers as a priority. There were labels on the bags giving safety advice on storage but this was ignored. The company had no safe systems of work and no training. |
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. |
|
|
|
|
|