Death occurred due to reversing lorry in yard

Mapei UK Limited, one of the world’s largest producers of adhesives for the construction industry, has been fined £173,332. + costs after a worker died when he was pinned against a forklift truck by a reversing lorry in Halesowen.

The circumstances were:

• In the yard where the accident occurred,  Mapei had failed to segregate pedestrians and vehicles adequately in order to organise, supervise, manage and run their transport yard.
• The yard did not have defined traffic routes or walkways, there were no ground markings and the yard was open with no physical restrictions on movement.
• A system was in place to restrict vehicle movement whereby all drivers handed in their vehicle keys on arrival, but this didn’t apply to all vehicles. 
• Mapei UK Ltd considered the transport area a low priority in terms of risk, despite previous independent safety reports telling them the opposite.
• Andrew Davies had been asked to empty a machine, using a forklift truck to move a skip and then empty the contents of the skip into a bag that was held within a cage.
• A lorry driver was asked to move his vehicle by another driver so they could access the loading area.  The system did not require him to hand his keys in, meaning he did not have to seek Mapei UK Ltd’s authority or assistance when moving his vehicle.
• Around the same time, Mr Davies had left the cab of his forklift truck and moved to the front of the forklift truck.
• The lorry driver reversed the 18-tonne rigid-back truck, unknowingly pinning Mr Davies between the back of the lorry and the cage which was resting on the forks of his forklift truck. His head was impaled against the forks, killing him instantly.

The HSE inspector said:

“Numerous health and safety failings by Mapei UK Ltd led to this tragic incident in which Mr Davies needlessly lost his life. The dangers associated with vehicle movements are obvious and have been highlighted by HSE for many years. There were long-term, systematic failings by the company to adequately assess the risks and take sufficient control measures to ensure the transport yard was operated without posing a risk to the safety of those working there. Since Mr Davies’ death, Mapei UK Ltd has implemented more effective controls of vehicle movements, limiting movements to one vehicle at a time and installing a traffic marshal to supervise vehicle manoeuvres. The operation which Mr Davies was carrying out is also now done away from other vehicles.”

Can employees sign away mandatory obligations?

This question arose today:
If we have a mandatory hearing protection zone, can employees who do not wish to wear hearing protection sign some declaration that they accept the risk to their hearing and will make no claim on the company should they suffer hearing loss?

The answer is NO.

Where a noise assessment has identified that the noise exposure (combination of noise level and exposure time) is above the second action point (85 dBA) of the Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005, then the employee must wear the protection provided.

What the employer must do is to take reasonably practical steps to prevent the noise exposure in the first place, either by choice and maintenance of machinery or by the control of transmission methods by devices such as acoustic enclosures.  SSS also strongly recommend that employees be given a choice of hearing protection; some prefer insert-type protectors and other prefer ear muffs.

Although Reg.7 of the Control of Noise at Works Regs., states that the employer "shall ensure so far as is reasonably practicable that no employee enters that area unless that employee is wearing personal hearing protectors", in some cases it may be a lower risk to allow certain people not to wear hearing protection. For example, forklift truck drivers who pass through a mandatory hearing protection area are not at risk because their exposure time is low, but the wearing of hearing protection would increase other risks, such as the potential for collision with a pedestrian.  Where a company has made this decision, then it must clearly publish the rules,

Supporting Regs:
Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005 Reg 8(2)(a) Every employee shall make full and proper use of personal hearing protectors provided to him by his employer in compliance with regulation 7(2) and of any other control measures provided by his employer in compliance with his duties under these Regulations.

Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974 Reg 7(b). 
It shall be the duty of every employee while at work, as regards any duty or requirement imposed on his employer or any other person by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions, to co-operate with him so far as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement 
to be performed or complied with.

Unguarded conveyor drive chain causes loss of 3 fingers.

A Lincolnshire timber company has been fined after an employee severed three fingers in an unguarded chain drive on a conveyor.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred on a conveyor at Sewstern Timber Services Ltd., on 9 March 2012.
• A roller conveyor had been supplied to Sewstern Timber Services by Armistead Engineering Ltd., a few months before the incident, but that it was inadequately guarded.
• Sewstern Timber Services failed to carry out a risk assessment for the machine so failed to identify the potential for harm.
• Shaun Newcomb was attempting to clear some blocked wood from the conveyor. 
• As he did so his right hand came into contact with the sprockets and chains that drove the rollers and he severed parts of his middle, ring and little finger.

Sewstern Timber Services Ltd, was fined a total of £28,000 (inc. costs).

The HSE inspector  said:

“This incident could easily have been prevented had adequate guarding been in place. Sewstern Timber Services Ltd should have picked up this mistake on their risk assessment and tackled the problem to ensure workers did not have access to the dangerous moving parts of the conveyor. Sadly, because they didn’t do this Mr Newcomb suffered painful, life-changing injuries.”

Lack of guarding causes loss of 2 fingers in plastics silo

A worker had two fingers pulled from their sockets as he cleaned a silo because inadequate guarding.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred on 21 December 2012 at a plastic recycling firm, Regain Polymers Ltd.
• The machine involved was a silo that uses a large stirrer with rotating angled blades to blend plastic flake.
• Below the silo was a chute with a metal slide valve.
• A switch on the valve was broken and a piece of metal had been attached over one of the contacts of the switch. This meant the stirrer could rotate whilst the slide valve was open.
• Regain Polymers had failed to make sure there was effective protection on the machine to prevent access by workers to dangerous moving parts.
• A worker, Kevin Sharp,  opened the valve to empty the silo, but the chute was blocked with compacted flake.
• As he put his arm up into the chute to clear the blockage, his right hand made contact with the moving stirrer.
• His middle and ring fingers were pulled out, complete with tendons; the skin was torn from his index finger and the little finger was severely damaged. Surgeons were unable to reattach the fingers.

On 29th November 2013, Regain Polymers Ltd was fined £8634 (inc. costs).

The HSE Inspector :

“Mr Sharp is still struggling to come to terms with this life-changing injury. He is right handed so basic tasks such as writing, cutting up food – many things you take for granted – now cause him considerable difficulty. Although some effort had been made by Regain Polymers to address access to the silo stirrer, it was not adequate and was easily defeated. Companies should ensure that the measures they take to guard dangerous parts of machines are effective and maintained in working condition. Visual and functional checks of machinery and guarding arrangements need to be carried out and documented on a regular basis. Had these measures been in place, Mr Sharp may not have suffered the injury that will now affect him for the rest of his life.”

Lack of guarding causes loss of two fingers

Sofidel UK Ltd, one of Europe’s largest tissue and paper towel manufacturers based in Leicester, has been fined after a worker had to have the tips of two fingers amputated after trapping them in badly-guarded machinery while trying to clear a blockage.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred on a paper converting machine on 26 September 2012.
• There was no fixed guarding for the belt and pulley drive of the conveyor to prevent access to moving parts of the machine.
• The injured  worker placed his hand inside the converting machine to try and remove the tissue blockage on the belt and pulley drive of the conveyor.
• His hand was trapped and the tips of two fingers on his left hand were so badly injured they had to be amputated.

Sofidel UK Ltd  was fined £2,712 (inc. costs.)

The HSE inspector said:

“This incident highlights the dangers posed by machinery and the need to fully re-assess risks from machinery when it is moved from one site to another. Sofidel UK Ltd failed to provide suitable guarding and did not take effective measures to prevent access by their workers to the dangerous moving parts. Workers should not be injured trying to fix a problem. Having an effective guard on this part of the machine would have prevented this employee from suffering nasty injuries to his hand.”

Director fined for ignoring improvement notices

London-based Sunbeam Wood Works Ltd and a director, Stephen Morrison, were fined on 27th November 2013 as a result of an inspection on 10 February 2013 and follow-up in April identified a number of serious issues.

• Two Improvement Notices were served in February requiring action to be taken to stop health and safety from being compromised, and to protect workers undertaking hazardous activities. 
• The follow up inspection in April revealed both were ignored. 
• Little had changed and that there were still serious faults.

As a result, Sunbeam Wood Works Ltd, was fined a total of £21,460 (inc. costs) and Stephen Morrison fined £8,000.
Relevant sections of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 were 2(1), 21 and 37.

The faults found in February were that the company had:

• failed to test ventilation systems for extracting potentially harmful wood dust
• failed to provide suitable respiratory protective equipment (RPE), controls or any health surveillance for employees working with hazardous spray paints
•  failed to control noise exposure
•  failed to provide adequate information, training and  supervision to protect workers from hazards, including inhaling chemicals such as isocyanate during spraying processes.

The HSE Inspector said:

“Employers have a duty to protect their workers, but this company carried out high risk activities, such as paint spraying and work that exposed employees to prolonged, high levels of noise, with disregard for their health and safety. The seriousness of these breaches was reflected in the Improvement Notices issued, which both the company and Stephen Morrison ignored. They failed to address the fact that workers were placed at unnecessary risk because of the inadequate RPE provisions, and the complete lack of health surveillance. They were being exposed to potentially harmful sprays and noise, and yet the company had no means of monitoring whether it was causing harm. Sunbeam Wood Works, under the lead of Mr Morrison, displayed poor performance over the period of our investigation. HSE will not hesitate to take action against duty holders who shirk their responsibilities in this way.”

Lack of isolation/lock-out system results in death

The lack of a system for non-standard work requiring isolation of equipment resulted in the death of an electrician who was crushed by an overhead crane at a Preston factory.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred on a platform next to a crane at Assystem UK Ltd on 12 March 2011.
• The platform, which was around four metres above the ground, had been installed for a specific project in September 2000.
• The platform had remained at the factory but there was no barrier at the bottom of the access ladder to prevent workers climbing up it while the crane was in use.
• The crane cleared the top of the guard rails around the ladder and platform by just 8.5cm. 
• Despite this, the company had not identified the risk of workers being crushed by the crane if they used the platform so no action had been taken to stop this from happening.
• End stops had previously been fitted to the rails used by the overhead crane that stopped the crane reaching the platform, but these had later been removed.
• On the day of the incident, Liam O’Neill had been trying to replace a cable, which hangs down from the crane to a handheld control, after it had developed an intermittent fault.
• The crane had been moved over the platform so Mr O’Neill could reach the top of the cable where it connects to a junction box on the crane. 
• There was no system of work requiring isolation and Mr O’Neill had been able to work on a platform in the path of the overhead crane without the power to the crane first being switched off.
• As he climbed onto the platform, the crane moved and he was crushed between the guard rails around the top of the ladder and the crane itself.

Assystem UK Ltd., £212,500 (ind. costs). 

TheHSE Inspector said:

“Liam tragically lost his life because his employer didn’t think about the potential consequences of having a working platform in the path of an overhead crane. Assystem should never have allowed the end stops to be removed from the crane’s rails when it was still possible for workers to climb up the ladder onto the platform. It would have been simple to put a system in place to make sure power to the crane was switched off before anyone climbed onto the platform, or to put up a barrier to prevent access to the platform.”