Testimonial on health and safety services

Finding SSS was like finding the golden nugget. 
They have eased the burden of health and safety, the whole process was professional, cost effective and on-time.  
We will certainly recommend them. 
When we go forwards to ISO 14001, we will use SSS.

John Wood, MD, Deburring Services, Cheltenham

Fall from 1.5m results in post-concussion syndrome

It doesn't take much height for a fall to cause long term injuries.

In this case, a man fell from 1.5m at a caravan company.

The circumstances were:

• The man was employed at Roma Caravans in  Silsoe, Bedfordshire.
• He was working on a makeshift platform, comprising an unsecured woodend plank across a metal frame on 21st February 2012.
• The platform was inherently unsafe and was unsuitable.
• He attempted to retrieve his tools but the far end of the plan swung up and hit him.
• He fell to the floor, banged his head but otherwise appeared to have suffered no other injury. 
• However, he collapsed two days later and was diagnosed with post-concussion syndrome. 
• He has since suffered from severe headaches and pains to his hip.

Roma Caravans was fined £8,527 (inc. costs) on 17th March 2014.

The HSE Inspector said:

“This incident was entirely avoidable, and illustrates the need for duty holders to ensure work of this nature is carefully planned and managed at all times. By not providing suitable equipment, Roma Caravans put the safety of a worker at risk. Appropriate and stable work platforms should always be used for any work undertaken at height.”

Testimonial covering all 3 areas of SSS support

We originally engaged Phil to implement a simple straightforward H&S system to enable us to manage our site health & safety. Having implemented it very easily and with the minimum amount of pain, Phil then took our old ISO 9001 quality management system manual and restructured it so we now have an intranet based manual which is simple and straightforward to follow.  Phil then integrated the SSS INTACT management system to manage all our audit meetings and actions so we now have a suite of simple systems in place to manage the business efficiently.

Ian Mence, Bushell & Meadows, Tewkesbury

See more about support from Strategic Safety Systems

Tips when outsourcing health and safety support

It makes a lot of sense to outsource health and safety support, but I’ve seen some shocking examples provided by others at companies I visit; not legally wrong, just totally ineffective. So, what should you look for when choosing who can provide such support?

Experience and qualifications

This should go without saying, but there are examples where the provider of the support has no experience in that sector.  Occasionally, I have to decline work because I am not competent in that speciality. So, you should ask them to verify that they have provided support in the same or comparable sectors to yours.

For assurance on qualifications, someone who is CMIOSH should be OK as they are obliged to operate within their competencies; with others, you will need to look more closely. Surprisingly, some trade association advisors are not at this level and I know of one major trade association where none of their H&S advisors are CMISOH! (I have been called in to carry out new assessments because their's were rejected, for example by the local fire service).

Avoid masses of paperwork

Ask to see examples of their work. A thick folder with lots of forms and padding is an indication to be concerned about this provider; it is just not workable. What you should look for are concise records and actions plans.  For example, a set of risk assessments is not enough; what you want is an action plan arising from those assessments. And some organisations just provide masses of forms and text and then expect you to do the work!

Avoid the tick-box/clipboard mentality

This might be difficult to spot without watching how somebody operates. But what you should look for is someone who gets close, communicates with operators and understands what they do, not someone in a suit standing at a distance with a clipboard.

Avoid tie-in contracts

Some providers expect to sign you up for 2 years or so. Avoid these like the plague.

Look for someone who will minimise their work

Done properly, health and safety support should be a diminishing requirement as you get on top of issues and gain ownership. So you should look for someone who is working towards reducing their input in future years.

Ask to see references or testimonials

This is something you would do when employing someone, so why not do it when you are considering them as a service provider?  Our testimonials are on the home page of our website, www.strategicsafety.co.uk .

See more about health & safety support from Strategic Safety Systems

Or if you have any questions on health and safety, call me on 07768 011667 or e-mail me at phil@strategeicsafety.co.uk.

Engineering company fined £12,000 for overridden interlocks

TG Engineering Ltd., of Ferndown was fined £12,369 (inc.costs) after a part was ejected past an open guard where the interlock had been disabled.

The circumstances were:

• The incident occurred on a CNC lathe.  
• This has a interlock on the guard which prevents high speed when the guard is open.
• The interlocks on the guard on this machine and several other machines had been disabled.
• The operator selected an incorrect speed which meant that the spindle speed was much too high, resulting in the workpiece and clamp being ejected.
• These hit the operator on the head.

The HSE inspector Matthew Tyler :

“CNC machines are powerful with the potential to cause serious harm, and the employee was extremely fortunate to escape relatively unharmed in this instance. Using the interlocking guards provided with the machine would have prevented access to dangerous parts and reduced the risk of ejection of materials and entanglement. The disabling of interlocks is a common failure in engineering companies and this prosecution should serve as a reminder to the risks involved.”

Lack of adequate guarding on textile machine causes finger crush injury

Lawton Yarns Ltd., of Dewsbury was fined £5,648 (inc. costs) after a worker was caught in an unguarded part of a machine.

The circumstances were:

• The company bought a miniature carding machine second-hand in 2000 and fitted guards.
• The guards did not cover access to the carding rollers from underneath.
• The company had several carding machines and the risks of access from the underside are well known within the industry.
• A worker reached under the rollers to reach some fibres, was caught and drawn in
• Three fingers were badly crushed.

The HSE Inspector said:

“Lawton Yarns’ key failing was not to assess the risks adequately in the first place. The assessment is the platform for informing you of the controls and measures you need. If the former is lacking, then so are the controls. In this case, a vital risk was missed and an employee now has to live with the serious consequences. The incident demonstrates that a risk assessment is not an administrative, paper exercise. If companies do not do it properly in the first place, they will always struggle to put in place proper safeguards.”

Ceiling company fined £25,000 for inadequate guarding

CEP Ceilings Ltd.,  Stafford, was fined a total of £25,200 (inc. costs) after a worker required skin grafts on his arm which had been caught in machinery.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred on a laminator on 21 January 2013.
• CEP Ceilings had not carried out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment. 
• In addition, no safe system of work was in place, and insufficient monitoring of employees took place.
• Covers protecting the drive mechanism to rollers had been removed to give easier access to the roller.
• The injured person was removing hardened-on glue from the lower roller when his left arm was caught in the drive mechanism.
• His forearm was caught in the intermeshing metal gears, which chewed up a large chunk of tissue. He needed a skin graft to help it heal.

The HSE inspector said:

“Mr Turney suffered a painful injury as a result of CEP Ceilings Ltd failing to effectively assess the risk to employees from using and cleaning the machine and then prescribe a system of work which kept employees safe. Workers were left to determine their own methods of cleaning machinery and these unsafe methods had existed for many years. Safe systems of work, information, instruction and training are required to control the risks during both production and maintenance activities. A robust system to monitor employees also needs to be in place to detect any poor practices.”