Last month, Cotswold Geotechnical (Holdings) Ltd became the first company to be convicted under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 after having been found guilty of failing to ensure the safety of an employee killed in a work related accident.

The company was fined £385,000. In September 2008, a 27 year old geologist with the company was investigating soil conditions in a 3.5 metre deep trench on a development plot in Stroud. He was left working alone in the trench when the company director left for the day. The trench was unsupported and collapsed burying him. Despite the best efforts of the plot owners to recover him, he died of traumatic asphyxiation.

The sole owner of the company which employed eight people in 2008, was initially charged with gross negligence manslaughter. However, personal charges were permanently stayed due to his ill-health. The decision to charge the company under the 2007 Act was made in April 2009.

The jury heard how the company had breached health and safety legislation and ignored well-recognised industry guidance that prohibited entry into unsupported excavations more than 1.2 metres deep, requiring junior employees to enter into and work in unsupported trial pits, typically from 2 to 3.5 metres deep. Also, a former employee had apparently raised concerns about trial pitting with the Health and Safety Executive in 2005. The Executive contacted the owner, who said he would support the pits in future, but didn’t.

After the two week trial, the jury found the company guilty. The Judge commented that its system of work in digging trial pits was wholly and unnecessarily dangerous.

Due to the “parlous financial state” of the company, a fine of £385,000 was imposed and ordered to be paid in instalments over 10 years. The judge commented that a larger fine would cause the company to be liquidated and four people would lose their jobs.

The first conviction for Corporate Manslaughter does leave a number of questions unanswered such as   who constitutes senior management of the company since this company only had one director. The true effectiveness of the Act will only be tested when the Crown Prosecution Service seeks to prosecute larger companies with complex management structures and where the line between senior management and others isn’t as easily identifiable.

There is also a question over the level of fine as the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s Definitive Guideline to Corporate Manslaughter, issued in February 2010, states “the appropriate fine for Corporate Manslaughter will seldom be less than £500,000 and may be measured in millions of pounds”. The Judge chose not take the opportunity of quantifying the culpability of the Defendant by stating what level of fine he would’ve imposed, had the company been in a stronger financial position.

The Court also had the opportunity to make a publicity order, in addition to a fine but it chose not to implement this; therefore we are unclear of how this may work in the future.

What is clearer is that this is the first prosecution with many to follow over the coming years and it should therefore send out a message that companies need to review what health and safety systems they have in place.

If not then they may run the risk of being hit with significant penalties which for larger and more profitable companies is quite likely to run into the millions; even if this is to be paid over many years.

We now know that for companies with a poor approach to health and safety, that the threat of prosecution is a real possibility. We would therefore advise these businesses to take a closer look at where their systems need to improve and if necessary ensure they take competent advice to get it right. If not, the risks of failure to keep people safe and healthy could have a major impact on profits for years to come.

At MESH we decided to apply to join the Consultants Register and have received our acceptance. However, we continue to have concerns that unknowing potential clients may use the register as a guide to determine if they are employing competent consultants.

If the register (as intended) over time becomes the norm for companies to find a suitable health & safety consultant then this would perhaps drive out consultants without the necessary qualifications or experience.

Over the past few years we have come across a number of situations where we have been asked to  review the health and safety systems of new clients and have been concerned with what we have found. In some of these cases the client has been previously advised by other health and safety consultants and often it appears not very well advised.

Only recently have we worked for a company based in the West Midlands who over a number of years had regular monthly consultants support; but very little appears to have been achieved. Of course, some of this could be down to the client not implementing the advice given but if the consultants were providing value for money we would have expected to find reasonably established systems and controls in place. However this was not the case.

It is important that the client understands that simply employing an external consultancy does not absolve the company of responsibility and accountability for managing its health and safety. As identified last month the HSE requires the employer to ensure the advice they are getting is to the correct standard. To do this requires them to source competent advice which is more than qualifications and scheme registrations but needs them to determine that the consultants are suitably experienced and able to provide the right advice to their business.

At MESH we believe that it is of primary importance to build trust with our clients and this can only be achieved through providing consistent proportionate advice that both assists in achieving legislative compliance but also makes the workplace safer in a manner that is sensitive to the individual business needs.

It has been identified that over a five year period, hundreds of injuries were not reported by Network Rail because staff and contractors were fearful of the consequences if they reported them.

The information has come to light following a Rail Safety Standards Board (RSSB) review into how accidents were being reported. The report issued shows that between 500-600 RIDDOR reportable accidents were not reported between 2005-2010.

The review concluded that Network Rail failed to spot the under-reporting because it believed the safety measures it was taking; which included league tables where managers had points deducted for RIDDOR incidents, were driving accidents down.

The review highlights the unintended consequences of management initiatives intended to improve safety. Network Rail has since taken action to correct this.

This does however provide a wider message to all businesses that they must think carefully when setting health and safety related Key Performance Indicators (KPI`s) as these can sometimes have an unintended outcome. At MESH we have, other the last 7 years, seen some poorly thought out KPI`s issued that have sent the wrong message to both managers and the workforce (employees and contractors). As a word of advice, employers must sure the targets are relevant, achievable and easily measurable to have a chance of improving the health and safety culture.

A Neath toilet roll manufacturer has been fined after a worker suffered a serious injury while operating machinery at their Baglan Energy Park premises.

The man was employed by Intertissue Ltd as a core operator, and was assisting his shift supervisor in clearing a wraparound of paper from the steel roller of a rewinding machine – used to layer the tissue paper.

The company seriously failed to protect its workers by not ensuring protection from accessing dangerous parts of the machinery even though it is an absolute duty under PUWER. Added to this the risks are well known throughout the paper industry and had suitable measures been in place this incident would not have happened.

An international waste recycling firm has been fined £60,000 after a worker lost part of his arm in an industrial incident in Basildon. The man was working as a process operator at Coolrec UK Ltd, in Basildon when his arm got caught in a conveyer belt. Doctors later had to amputate it.

The HSE prosecuted the parent company Coolrec Group BV, based in the Netherlands.

We have to ask why companies are putting employees into a position where an accident that changes their lives such as this can still occur so easily. Is it because they don`t understand the risks or is it because profit is more important? It’s about time businesses start to wake up to the fact that time spent ensuring the appropriate risk controls are in place will ultimately save time and money in the long run and most importantly stop such life changing events.

Does your company have robust operational health & safety systems in place or are your employees at risk of injury? At MESH we have extensive experience of helping companies to both implement effective control systems and to train staff to their safe use; thereby protecting both the staff and the business. 

A Yeovil vehicle repair and sales company has been prosecuted after one of its workers fell from a cage balanced on a fork lift truck. The man who was an employee of Vincents Car Sales Ltd was carrying out repair work on a high-sided lorry when the incident happened.

He was attempting to change a marker light at the back of the lorry, but the equipment he had been supplied with was not adequate for this task. He had been given a step ladder which wasn’t tall enough. Instead, he placed a metal cage on the forks of a fork lift truck and stood on top of the cage while a colleague raised the forks.

Vincents Car Sales Ltd, of Yeovil, was not present in Bristol Magistrates Court, but the breach of Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work (Etc) Act 1974 was proved in its absence. It was fined £5,000. 

A Huntly-based haulage partnership has been fined £8,000 for health and safety failures at its site in Stirling. Harpers Transport, which specialises in timber haulage and wood recycling, was prosecuted after inspectors from the HSE attended at the firm’s site at Cowie, near Stirling.

Following an investigation, the HSE inspectors discovered that a trailer used to transport waste chipboard between yards at the site was in a poor state of repair and unsafe. They also found that the trailer had been loaded with chipboard in an unstable configuration, placing employees at risk of injury.

We would also add that the company had a legal obligation to ensure that the equipment in use was suitable by design, fit for purpose and that it was properly inspected and maintained.

An engineering firm has been fined £4,000 after a worker was badly injured when his hand became entangled in an unguarded drill. The worker suffered permanent loss of movement to three fingers in his left hand following the incident at a construction site in Leyland in December 2009.

The 60-year-old from Clitheroe spent four days in hospital, required several skin grafts and has been unable to return to work as a result of his injuries.

Are you aware of what risks your workers face when using work equipment and what you need to consider to comply with PUWER? Why not take a look at some of the companies MESH has assisted around the UK. to see if we may be able to assist you. 

If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter please just reply to this email with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.