Unsafe delivery and unloading operation causes loss of leg.

Vincent Sutton, a Tameside factory worker had to have part of his left leg amputated after he was struck by an 850kg metal frame being delivered to a plant in Glossop. 
Russell Fabrications was fined £36.651 (inc.costs) and Delpro fined £20,735 (inc.costs).
.
The circumstances were:

• Russell Fabrications (UK) Ltd., had manufactured a 5m long fabrication called a skid for Delpro Ltd.
• Neither company had adequately planned how they were going to deliver and unload this.
• The skid was loaded onto a pickup truck at an angle using an overhead crane and chains, with the top end resting on a supporting bar above the driver’s cab.
• When the skid arrived at the Delpro plant, workers lifted it off the truck using the same chains, this time attached to a forklift truck. 
• The chains consisted of two separate sets, one of which was significantly shorter than the other to allow for the angle of the lift.
• As they lifted the frame, the shorter chains – attached to the higher side – forced their way out from the hook on the forklift truck. 
• The frame fell around two metres to the ground and landed on Mr Sutton’s left foot.
• The damage was so severe that his leg eventually had to be amputated to above the knee for medical reasons.

The HSE Inspector said:

“The failings of both companies contributed to this incident, which could so easily have been avoided had more thought gone into the planning of the loading, unloading and transport of the metal frame. The methods adopted for both the loading at Russell Fabrications (UK) Ltd and the unloading at Delpro Ltd were inherently unsafe and the vehicle used to transport the frame was unsuitable as the loading area was too small to safely accommodate it. Unfortunately the failings of the two companies have led to a worker suffering life changing and permanently disabling injuries.”

Health and safety offences sentencing guidelines

There is a wide disparity in sentences passed, with many appearing derisory, eg £46,000 for a lost arm where the company had allowed the practice for 30 years.

To address these, sentencing guidelines have been proposed.
These guidelines show sentences appropriate for offences based on

• The seriousness of the harm
• The culpability of the company, and
• The size of the company (ie large fines are appropriate for large companies).

Essentially, the courts would determine the harm category and culpability, and then choose a fine range based on the size of the company 

		Seriousness of harm risked
		Level A Death   Physical or mental impairment resulting in lifelong dependency on third party care for basic needs   Health condition resulting in significantly reduced life expectancy	Level B   Physical or mental impairment, not amounting to Level A, which has a substantial and long-term effect on the sufferer’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities or on their ability to return to work A progressive, permanent or irreversible condition	Level C   All other cases not falling within Level A or Level B
Likelihood	High	Harm category 1	Harm category 2	Harm category 3
	Medium	Harm category 2	Harm category 3	Harm category 4
	Remote	Harm category 3	Harm category 4	Harm category 4 (start towards bottom of range)

.

Culpability	Definition
Very high	Deliberate breach of or flagrant disregard for the law
High	Offender fell far short of the appropriate standard, eg failing to put in place measures that are recognised standards in the industry ignoring concerns raised by employees or others failing to make appropriate changes following prior incident(s) exposing risks to health and safety   allowing breaches to subsist over a long period of time Evidence of serious, systemic failings within the organisation to address risks to health and safety
Medium	Offender fell short of the appropriate standard in a manner that falls between descriptions in ‘high’ and ‘low’ culpability categories Level of offender’s systemic failure falls between descriptions in ‘high’ and ‘low’ culpability categories
Low	Offender did not fall far short of appropriate standard; eg, because   significant efforts were made to address the risk although they were inadequate on this occasion   there was no prior event or warning indicating a risk to health and safety Evidence that failings were minor and not systemic

.
Fines for a small company (turnover £2 million to £10 million) would be:

Culpability	Harm category	Starting point	Range
Very high	1	£450,000	£300,000 – £1,600,000
	2	£200,000	£100,000 – £800,000
	3	£100,000	£50,000 – £400,000
	4	£50,000	£20,000 – £190,000
High	1	£250,000	£170,000 – £1,000,000
	2	£100,000	£50,000 – £450,000
	3	£54,000	£25,000 – £210,000
	4	£24,000	£12,000 – £100,000
Medium	1	£160,000	£100,000 – £600,000
	2	£54,000	£25,000 – £230,000
	3	£24,000	£12,000 – £100,000
	4	£12,000	£4,000 – £50,000
Low	1	£45,000	£25,000 – £130,000
	2	£9,000	£3,000 – £40,000
	3	£3,000	£700 – £14,000
	4	£700	£100 – £5,000

.
More information can be found on:
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/sentencing-council/health-and-safety-offences-guidelines/supporting_documents/healthandsafetyoffencesconsultationguideline.pdf

Mixture of overridden interlock and loose overalls causes broken neck

Nuneaton Precisions Ltd, of Nuneaton was fined £11,252 (inc. costs) after an employee broke his neck when he was drawn into an unguarded machine.

The circumstances were:

• Interlocks on a spindle moulder had been rendered ineffective.
• On 18 September 2013, a machinist was machining a piece of nylon when his overalls got tangled in the mchine
• As well as breaking two bones in his neck, the incident left him with a fractured right shoulder and a split ear which required stitches and plastic surgery. 
• He was in hospital for eight days and off work for ten months.  He has since returned to work for the company.

The HSE inspector said:

“This was an horrific incident that left a man with multiple serious injuries. It was also an incident that could and should have been prevented. It is a basic premise of health and safety that workers should not be able to come into contact with dangerous moving parts of machinery. By failing to ensure that the interlocks were maintained, workers were put at risk, and one could have very nearly paid with his life.”

Fixed guard removed which resulted in employee's hand being caught

Treforest Textiles of Pontypridd was fined £6184 (inc. costs) after an employee’s hand was caught in machinery.

The circumstances were:

• On 16 May 2013, Eiron Atkins, who had operated this equipment for 20 years, was unable to start a rotary textile printer.
• He took off one of the fixed guards on the side of the printer in an effort to let air circulate and dry the machine.
• The guards had no devices requiring use of a tool to prevent anyone from removing them.
• As Mr Atkins crouched down to take a better look, he slipped and his hand was dragged into the belt of the printer. 
• He lost parts of three fingers on his right hand and was off work for ten weeks. 
• Since the accident he has suffered extreme sensitivity to cold in the injured hand, along with other difficulties caused by loss of motor function in the affected hand.

The HSE Inspector said 

“This incident could have been entirely prevented had Treforest Textiles adequately guarded the machinery. As a result, Mr Atkins suffered permanent significant injuries to his right hand. Companies must assess the safety of their machinery and ensure that moving parts do not endanger their workers by putting adequate guarding in place.”

EDM fined £8k+ for missing guards on lathes

EDM Ltd., a Manchester firm which manufactures flight simulator equipment, was fined £8,332 (inc. costs) for using unsafe machinery.

The circumstances were:

• EDM did not have a system in place to make sure machines were fitted with guards. 
• Staff had also not received training on how to use guards, and supervision at the factory was poor.
• Magistrates heard the firm had identified several missing machine guards in a health and safety document it produced, but failed to take any action.
• An HSE inspector first visited EDM in September 2013 after receiving an anonymous complaint. 
• Two Improvement Notices were issued requiring guards to be fitted on two metalworking lathes.
• The same inspector returned to the site in June 2014 and noticed that guards were missing on two other machines. 
• This time Prohibition Notices were served to prevent them from being used until guards were fitted

The HSE Inspector said:

“EDM Ltd manufactures equipment used to keep the aviation industry safe but it failed to ensure the safety of its own employees. The Improvement Notices HSE issued in September 2013 should have acted as a wake-up call to improve machine guards but I found guards were still missing when I revisited the factory nine months later. There was simply no point in the company identifying missing guards in a health and safety document if it wasn’t going to act on its findings.”

Worker loses arm in unguarded machinery

Farnbeck Ltd., an Edinburgh manufacturing company was fined £46,660 after a worker had to have his arm amputated after it became trapped in a machine.

The circumstances were:

• The company had a machine with a rotating wooden cylinder used in the security printing industry.
• Cotton fabric is wrapped around this cylinder.
• This cylinder is exposed and for the last 30 years the company have allowed employees to be exposed to the hazard posed by this rotating cylinder.
• Consequently no measures were put in place to minimise the risk or to change the systems of work.
• On  5 June 2012 Akshay Phale, an employee, was attempting to wrap cotton fabric.
• His fingers became trapped between the fabric and rotating cylinder.
• He was unable to release his fingers due to the tension of the fabric around the cyclinder. 
• As the cylinder rotated, it pulled his hand around it, causing his forearm to become trapped. 
• The fabric was cut to ease the tension, but he was trapped for almost an hour until other employees, together with the fire service, were able to disconnect the motor and release his arm
• He was taken to hospital where he underwent several operations over a 17-day period, including the amputation of his right forearm below the elbow. 
• He required several months of physiotherapy and has sustained permanent scarring on his back, arm, leg and right hand. He has not yet been able to return to work.

The HSE inspector said:

“This incident was entirely foreseeable and therefore entirely preventable. Where an employee is able to gain access to dangerous moving parts, there is a risk of injury. Farnbeck Ltd should have identified the risk posed to workers on this particular machine and made sure the rotating cylinder was switched off prior to employees coming into close contact with it. This unsafe practice had been carried out for many years and it is fortunate that there have been no other serious incidents as a result.”

Don't have absolute faith in trade associations

Don't get me wrong, as trade associations and federations provide a great service over a broad spectrum of topics.
But the snag is that their range is so broad.
We've just done some work for a client who had a query from their client on certification of materials they supplied.
They were given the run around by their trade federation and in the end came to Strategic Safety Systems who were able to give an answer (that there was no such certification when you are talking about their type of product.)
In specialist areas, talk to the specialists.