Recresco fined nearly £60,000 after roller shutter door failure injured employee

Recycling firm Recresco Limited was fined £59, 944 (inc.costs) after a worker suffered crush injuries from a roller shutter door.

The circumstances were:

• None of the electronically operated roller shutter doors at the company’s site had been adequately maintained to keep the equipment safe.
• On 17 April 2015 the barrel of a door fell on an employee.
• This resulted in three cracked ribs and a damaged spleen.
• This caused him to miss eight weeks of work.

The HSE inspector said:
“This case highlights the importance of regular pro-active maintenance and inspection of work equipment, including roller shutter doors, to ensure equipment does not deteriorate to the extent that it puts people at risk. In this case Recresco failed to effectively maintain their equipment and it could have easily resulted in a fatal injury.”

2 owners of Kidderminster company each fined £12,150 following forklift truck accident

The two owners of Kidderminster based fencing firm Hoo Farm Fencing have been given suspended sentences and each fined £12,150 (inc.costs) after a worker was hit by timber posts and frames which fell from a fork lift truck.
The circumstances were:

• On 12 February 2016, Raymond Lainsbury was helping to dip timber posts and frames in preservative.
• The posts were on a frame on a forklift truck.
• The equipment was not suitable for the task. 
• The operator had not been properly trained to operate a fork lift truck. 
• The company also failed to have the fork lift truck thoroughly examined.
• The posts fell from the fame, striking him.

Maurice James Blackford and Susan Hawthorn both pled guilty to breaching section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
They were sentenced to 18 weeks imprisonment suspended for two years and each fined £10,000 and half the costs of £4318.

The HSE inspector said
“The seriousness of the safety failings could have resulted in much more severe injuries to Mr Lainsbury who was lucky to walk away from this incident. This case highlights the importance of maintaining proper safety practices and also all duty holders will be held accountable for failing to do so.”

H E Realisations fined £42,230 for injury due to unsafe overhead crane use

H E Realisations Ltd., a Cleckheaton engineering firm, was fined £42,230 (inc.costs) for safety breaches after a worker suffered life changing injuries.

The circumstances were:

• On 24 February 2015, Kevin Tait was using equipment to lift an 18 tonne steel roll.
• The equipment was poorly maintained. 
• The lifting operation had not been suitably planned.
• 18 tonne was above the safe working load of the equipment.
• Part of one of the shortening clutches sheared causing the load to swing and strike Mr Tait on the head.  

H E Realisations are now in liquidation, hence the low level of the fine.

The HSE inspector commented:
“Lifting operations are hazardous and require a competent person to properly plan and supervise them to ensure that suitable and properly maintained equipment is used in the right configuration to avoid exceeding safe working loads. Kevin is incredibly lucky that he was not killed in this incident and he has suffered permanent life changing injuries as a result. This workplace accident has changed the lives of Kevin and his family irrevocably.”

Categorising head protection

Useful section in IOSH Magazine's PPE Guide supplement categorising head protection with examples of where it may be applied:

EN812 Bump Caps

• Vehicle manufacture and maintenance
• Loft insulation
• Plumbing
• Removals

EN 397 Industrial safety helmets-Lightweight 

• Low rise construction
• Highway maintenance
• Utilities

EN 397 Industrial safety helmets-Standard

• Construction
• Manufacturing
• External terlecoms

EN 12492 Mountaineering helmets

• Rigging
• High rise construction
• Building sites
• Tower climbing
• Energy and network sites

EN 14052 High-performance industrial safety helmets 

• High rise construction
• Mining
• Demolition

Felt Supplies Ltd. fined £239,000 and director given suspended sentence after fatality

Felt Supplies Ltd., a textile manufacturing company was fined £239,000 (inc.costs) and one of its directors, Wazir Hussain sentenced after a fatal accident to the company’s Managing Director, Nasir Hussain.

The circumstances were:

• On the 1 February 2012 the carding machine had become blocked with waste. 
• Nasir Hussain gained access to the line whilst it was still running.
• Nassir overrode the safety system using a spare key to unlock one of the gates. 
• He then stood on top of the carding machine with a metal bar in order to clear the blockage while the line was still running. 
• Although the machine was switched off after a time it was still running down when his clothing became entangled and he was pulled into the machine and killed.
• The use of a spare key to access machinery, whilst it was operational, was commonplace by the workforce. 
• It was custom and practice for workers to gain access to the machinery in order to clear a jam or blockage.
• Despite HSE issuing a Prohibition Notice to stop these unsafe practices and taking the spare keys into possession the unsafe practices were allowed to continue for a sustained period following the fatal accident with the knowledge and consent of company director Wazir Hussain.

Felt Supplies Ltd was fined £239,000 (inc. costs).

Wazir Hussain received a 12-month suspended prison sentence for 18-months.

The HSE inspector commented:
“This is a tragic incident that could so easily have been avoided. In this case it was the Director that was fatally injured and it could so easily have been an employee, in which case, we may have been looking at a corporate manslaughter charge. Companies should be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below the required standards especially where there has been a deliberate breach or a flagrant disregard for the law.”

Tayto Group fined £341,750 after an agency worker lost the tops of three fingers

Tayto Group Limited who manufacture crisps and snacks was fined £341,750 (inc.costs) after an agency worker lost the tops of three fingers.

The circumstances were:

• The agency worker was clearing a blockage of material from a machine on the production line.
• The guard on the machine was not secured at the time of the incident. 
• The company had not implemented a formal monitoring system on this machine, to ensure that all guards were in place and secure before the machine was started.
• The worker's hand came into contact with shears and three fingers on his right hand were severed, below the first knuckle.

The HSE Inspector said:
‘This man suffered a life-changing injury in what was an entirely preventable incident. Employers must have adequate and robust systems to ensure that guards used to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery are in place and secure before machinery is put into use.’

North Eastern engineering company fined £150,000 after 2 employees sustained chemical burns

PSL Worldwide Projects Ltd., were fined £150,000 for safety breaches after two of its workers were burned when they were sprayed with chemicals during chemical cleaning of a pipework system.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred during cleaning of pipework at a Hyclone UK Ltd site, in Cramlington on 31 July 2014.
• The cleaning of the pipework system used sodium hydroxide (caustic soda).
• PSL Worldwide Projects Ltd., had not adequately risk assessed the task.
• The equipment provided to do the job, in particular the hosing, was not suitable for the solution.
• PSL failed to provide adequate personal protective equipment.
•  A reaction occurred between the chemicals and water in the system that caused the liquid to heat up building up pressure in the hose. 
• The hose detached and sprayed the two workers with the solution, causing severe burns.
• One operative received life threatening burns to his back, buttocks, arms, leg, neck and one side of his face. 
• The other operative received burns to the right side of his head, his neck, and back, left arm and behind his right ear.

No costs were awarded due to the company being in liquidation.

The HSE inspector commented:
“If a suitable risk assessment had been undertaken it would have identified that the equipment being used was not right for the chemicals or the work being carried out. All companies who work with high hazard chemicals should learn from this case and ensure that their workers are properly protected.”