Cohart Asbestos Disposal fined £45,674 for leg amputation

Cohart Asbestos Disposal Ltd., an Essex-based hazardous waste disposal company was fined £45,674 (inc.costs) after a worker was crushed beneath a tracked excavator at a sorting and recycling site.

The circumstances were:

• 7 February 2014 a company director was operating a 360^o tracked excavator, which he was using to transfer waste from a main pile to an adjacent manual-sorting area at the Cohart site.
• The excavator’s reversing alarm and beacon were not working and a mirror was missing from the side of the cab.
• There was no camera or mirror on the rear of the vehicle.
• The company had failed to ensure effective communications between the operator of the excavator and persons working in the yard.
• A worker was processing wood waste .
• He moved behind the excavator to pick up an old door and place it in a skip. 
• As he did so, the operator reversed the excavator, crushing the worker beneath one of the tracks. 
• He sustained serious crush injuries to his right leg which later required amputation in hospital.
• A visibility assessment on the excavator also revealed that the operator would have been affected by a ‘blind spot’ of up to eight metres directly behind the vehicle.  

The HSE Inspector said:
“Potentially fatal risks arise from operating heavy plant on waste sites, particularly if, as in this case, the vehicle operator’s visibility is restricted. This worker suffered life-changing injuries after the company failed to put in place effective measures to protect pedestrian workers from its heavy plant operations. Every year many people are killed or seriously injured in incidents involving workplace transport, and there is no excuse for employers to neglect this risk. Pedestrians, whether employees or others, should be kept separate from workplace vehicle movements by using physical barriers or safe systems of work that are clear and well supervised.

Volvo fined £900,000 after fall from fault step ladder

Volvo was fined £905,900 (inc.costs) after one of their workers fell and suffered head injuries.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred at their national truck, bus and plant division.
• On 17 September 2015 a worker was servicing a large delivery truck.
• A step ladder that he was using was damaged and its anti-slip feet were worn.
• It was not Volvo property and had not been maintained or checked to ensure it was suitable for use.
• Volvo UK had not trained their staff to select, inspect and use access equipment for work at height.
• He was repairing the driver’s access rope for the cab when he fell, striking his head and losing consciousness.
• He was placed in a medically induced coma for two-weeks. 
• He still suffers from ongoing complications and has been unable to return to work.

The HSE inspector said,
“This worker suffered life changing injuries that could have been prevented by simple health and safety precautions. For two weeks his family was told to prepare for the worst as he was placed in an induced coma to help manage the swelling on his brain. This case is not about banning ladders, on many occasions they are the right equipment to use when working at height, it is about companies ensuring they properly maintain their work at height equipment and train their workers on how to inspect them and select the correct tools for the job. As this case shows, even a fall from a relatively small height can have devastating consequences.”

Health and Safety Offences Guidelines bite. An explanation of how they work.

By a perverse coincidence, two cases for identical events at the same company (Burger King) enable us to compare the fines imposed after 12th March 2015 when the Health and Safety Offences Guidelines came into effect.

Both fines were for breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 

• That imposed before 12 March 2015 was £13,300.

• That imposed after 12 March 2015 was £153,360.

I think that the fact that the second case was a repeat of the first would have increased the fine because Burger King had not learnt the lessons, but the new level of fines means that companies must be aware of what could potentially hit them. 

Hence the link below to our 2015 blog explaining how the Health and Safety Offences Guidelines work.

See our blog explaining the Sentencing Guidelines

New Earth Solutions fined £118,000 (low because of them being in administration) for death

New Earth Solutions Group Limited, a Kent-based waste and recycling company, was fined £118,373 (inc. costs) after an employee died when wasted material collapsed on top of him.

The circumstances were:

• The  company failed to undertake and prepare risk assessments or safe systems of work for the creation and management of the stockpiles or adequate training.
• Neville Watson was working close to the pile of waste material after connecting a shredder to the loading shovel he was driving. 
• He died of asphyxiation whilst under the pile of waste that appeared to be over eight-metres-high.

The judge indicated that is the company had not been in administration the fine would have been between £600,000 and £1.3million.

The HSE inspector said:
“The request for Mr Watson to carry out the shredding operation was made without any form of structured training being in place. The company failed to ensure that Mr Watson was supervised by an employee trained in the task he was carrying out, particularly in light of the fact that he had never carried out the task before.”

Consillium Environmental Services fined £34,500 after worker was caught in conveyor

Consillium Environmental Services Limited, a Lancashire-based environmental services company, was fined £34,500 (inc.costs) after a worker suffered serious injuries when his arm was crushed by machinery.

The circumstances were:

• No suitable and sufficient risk assessment had been carried out to identify the risks from rollers on a conveyor. 
• There was no suitable isolation process or guarding in place, and no safe system of work for cleaning the rollers.
• On 20th May 2015 a worker was working on a waste line cleaning out waste plastic material from a conveyor belt when the machinery was started and his arm was drawn in between the rollers and the belt.
• He suffered crush injuries in two places on his left arm and needed extensive surgery. 
• He has not been able to return to work since the incident.

The HSE Inspector said:
“This incident was entirely preventable. It is essential to take effective measures to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery. As in this case the outcome for ignoring these simple safety measures can result in life changing injuries and a substantial fine.”

Recycling company fined £308,000 for fractured arm and leg whilst working on a shredder

Countrystyle Recycling Limited, a Kent based recycling company, was fined £308,903 (inc. costs) after a worker was injured whilst repairing a shredder.

The circumstances were:

• The company did not have adequate or suitable systems in place to protect the health and safety of their employees.
• There was no isolation (lock-out) procedure for machinery.
• The company had allowed unchallenged poor practice to become the norm.
• On 7 October 2013, a plant mechanic was in the process of repairing a shredding machine after the metal plate forming the roof of the hammer drum had become detached. 
• He was kneeling on a conveyor belt inside the shredder without the shredder being isolated when it restarted.
• He was thrown from the machine and suffered a fractured right leg and left arm

Jiffy Bag manufacturer fined £123,000 for loss of thumb

Jiffy Packaging Company Limited was fined £123,509 (inc.costs) after a worker’s thumb was severed due to inadequate guarding over dangerous parts of machinery.

The circumstances were:

• The company’s risk assessment had been written nine years earlier by an employee untrained in creating risk assessments. 
• The assessment did not identify risks related to unguarded machinery or any control measures.
• Although the company had partially guarded the rollers and cogs of the machine with an interlocked guard, they failed to take adequate measures to prevent access to all dangerous parts of machinery.
• The company had previously been served with several HSE Improvement Notices highlighting machinery guarding issues
• A worker reached through an unguarded section in the frame of one of the machines to clean ink from a roller. 
• The rag he was using got caught in one of the motorised cogs, causing his hand to be pulled into the rotating cogs. 
• His left thumb was severed, resulting in him receiving skin grafts in hospital and being unable to work for 15 weeks

The HSE inspector said:
“The employee’s life changing injuries could have been prevented if a suitable and sufficient risk assessment had been completed and the correct control measures implemented. The day after the accident the company carried out a new risk assessment of the machine guarded the area in which the employee reached through with a clear plastic screen. The company followed this up with a written safe system of work relating to cleaning the rollers.’’

Californian woman sues J&J for $70M because of talc

A woman in California has successfully sued Johnson & Jonson because of ovarian cancer which she claims was caused by talc.
Another 2 such cases were thrown out because the judge stated that there was no reliable evidence that talc leads to ovarian cancer.

Talc is Magnesium Silicate with the formula Mg3Si4O10(OH)2.
Chrysotile is Magnesium Silicate with the formula Mg3Si2O5(OH)4. This is commonly called white asbestos.  Interesting, n'est pas?

Sonoco Cores & Paper fined £126,000 whilst changing a roll on a machine

Sonoco Cores & Paper Ltd., a Halifax paper mill firm, was fined £126,354.00 (inc. costs) after a worker suffered severe crush injuries to his right hand.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred while changing a couch roll on a board machine.
• The risk assessment for this type of work was not suitable or sufficient, 
• It had identified the hazard, yet it did not consider the likelihood or severity of the risk 
• It did not identify appropriate measures to prevent an uncontrolled fall of the machine’s hinged steel arm.
• The worker’s middle finger was severed in the machine and he required subsequent amputation of  both his index and ring fingers.  
• He is now registered as partly disabled.

Smiths Metal Centres fined £132,000 after trolley overturned causing worker to lose most of his foot

Smiths Metal Centres Limited, a Bedfordshire metal company was fined £132,456 after a worker suffered severe leg injuries and lost most of his foot.

The circumstances were:

• Smiths purchased four wheeled trolley to be used as ‘workstations’ about 20 years ago.
• However, employees had chosen to also use them to move metal stock around the site.
• There was no risk assessment or written system of work for these trolleys.
• A bundle of 18 stainless steel bars weighing about 900kg was a trolley.
• The trolley had faulty wheels and there was no record of any maintenance.
• The trolley was manually moved by Mr Simpson and another staff member 
• It tipped over and the bundle of bars fell off the top of the trolley trapping his leg and foot. 
• He was rushed to hospital by the emergency services. 
• Mr Simpson’s right leg was broken and his right foot was badly crushed. 
• Despite a number of operations to save his foot, most of it was amputated and he now has a prosthetic foot. It was many months before he was able to return to work. 
• Mr Simpson is currently only able to work on a part-time basis.
• After the accident, the trolley was given a safe working load of 500kg, ie half the weight placed on the trolley at the time of the accident.

The HSE Inspector Emma Page said:

“Luke’s life has been drastically altered by what happened and this incident could have been very easily avoided with some very simple measures. The right equipment and a correct maintenance system would have prevented this from happening.”

R Tindall (Fabricators) Ltd fined £75,000 for fatality

Oldham manufacturing firm R Tindall (Fabricators) Ltd was fined £75,000 (inc.costs) after a worker died after he was crushed under metal pipework.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred during an operation to move pipework bundles.
• There was no risk assessment or documented system for moving and stacking pipework or any items around the site.
• There was a method for moving bundles using a wooden framework.
• However, the method of packing bundles had changed to a less stable arrangement without being documented anywhere.
• 53-year-old Frank Dunne was operating a side-loader forked lift truck which was carrying a vacuum packed pipe bundle. 
• While he was attempting to load a second bundle weighing 1.5 tonnes, it fell, crushing him underneath.
• There were no eye witnesses to the incident. 
• Mr Dunne was found over an hour later when work colleagues moved the side-loader which was still running, discovering his body under the pile.

The HSE Inspector said:
“There was no risk assessment carried out on this new method of working and no system put in place for the operators to follow. If the company had provided a safe system of work for their employees to follow this tragic incident to Mr Dunne could have been avoided.”

Consillium Environmental Services fined £34,500 for conveyor accident

Lancashire-based environmental services company, Consillium Environmental Services, was fined £34,500 (inc.costs) after a worker suffered serious injuries when his arm was crushed by a conveyor belt.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred on a conveyor belt in a waste processing plant.
• No suitable and sufficient risk assessment had been carried out.
• There was no suitable isolation process or guarding in place.
• There was no safe system of work for cleaning the rollers.
• On 20th May 2015 Muhammad Shoaib, was cleaning out waste plastic material from the conveyor belt.
• The machinery was started and his arm was drawn in between the rollers and the belt.
• Mr Shoaib suffered crush injuries in two places on his left arm and needed extensive surgery. 
• He has not been able to return to work since the incident.

The HSE Inspector said:
“This incident was entirely preventable. It is essential to take effective measures to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery. As in this case the outcome for ignoring these simple safety measures can result in life changing injuries and a substantial fine.”

Lack of guarding causes broken arm and £194,000 fine during commissioning

Sovex Limited, a Wirral based company, was been fined £194,000 (inc.costs) after a worker’s arm was injured in machinery.

The circumstances were:

• Sovex were installing a new conveyor belt system at the UK Mail site in Coventry.
• There were a lack of effective guarding and isolation procedures on the machinery.
• On 21 January 2016 an installation engineer of Sovex was commissioning the machinery.
• His arm was pulled into the machinery.
• The arm was fractured.

GEA Mechanical Engineering fined £80,000 for fracture caused by poorly planned lifting operation

Milton Keynes based GEA Mechanical Engineering Limited was fined £80,831 (inc.costs) for safety failings after a worker suffered serious injuries to his leg.

The circumstances were:

• On 29 January 2015 GEA workers were attempting to lift a 900kg decanter scroll back into its mobile trailer.
• GEA failed to ensure that staff were suitably trained and competent to plan and carry out a lift of this complexity.
• They were struggling to manoeuver it far enough into the trailer. 
• They asked Ralph Jago, an employee from the office staff, to assist them.
• During this operation, the decanter slid forward trapping Mr Jago’s right leg against metal racking. 
• He was trapped for an hour and a half before fire and rescue services were able to free him.  
• He suffered serious fractures to his right leg requiring metal rods and pins to be inserted

.

SSS systems covering ISO 9001:2015 and ISO 14001:2015 standards

We're well on the way to updating systems to meet the changed requirements of ISO 9001:2015 and ISO 14001:2015.
Totally new procedures to meet ISO 9001:2015 are:

• 3.2 prA Context
• 3.6 prA Risk and opportunity identification and control
• 4.3 prA Infrastructure

Of course, systems are tailored to suit the needs of the individual company so the actual content will vary but will have the above headings.

For those companies that use the INTACT integrated action management system, there's a new page covering Risks and Opportunities.

We'll keep you informed as the ISO 14001 changes are developed and we aim to get most of out clients systems changed in 2016.

See more about SSS systems support.
See more about the INTACT integrated action management system.

Beware the CE mark, yet again

I make no apologies for being boring about this.

Be VERY cautious when you buy a new machine. Just because it is new, and has the CE mark, it doesn't mean to say it is safe.
The manufacturer is obliged to:

1. Design and build the equipment so that it complies with appropriate essential health and safety requirements (EHSRs) and harmonised European standards (HESs). 
2. Assess the equipment for conformity with EHSRs) and (HESs). 
3. Be able to compile a technical file proving conformance. 
4. Draw up a declaration of conformity and affix the CE mark to the equipment.

Note that, with the exception of some equipment like press brakes or injection moulding machines, there is no specialist external inspector; it is the manufacturer's self-certification process.  

Make sure that you specify that the supplier must do the above. If you buy a machine from a UK company (or from a company within the EU), then they are obliged to do this, but quite a few of them don't. In your order, I strongly advice you to state that you will withhold say, 10%, until you are satisfied that the machine dies actually conform to EHSRs and HESs.

If you buy a machine from outside the EU, then YOU are the supplier and you take on the above obligations. If you simply buy a machine, then you may run into trouble when you try to sell it. Again, I strongly advice you to state in your order that you will withhold an amount until you are satisfied that the machine dies actually conform to EHSRs and HESs.

See more about CE marking in SSS White Paper 9.

Ensure that you carry out air conditioning leak test

Alarmingly, I see many instances where companies fail to carry out a periodic leak test on air conditioning equipment.
The leak test may be quite simple and even using a spray of soapy water and looking for the bubbles can be acceptable.

Under the Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases Regs 2015, you must carry out a leak test at intervals dependant upon:

• The global warming potential (GWP) of the gas, and
• The amount stored in your system.

It is obvious that this interval is based on the risk. For most companies reading this, the interval is every year.

These two articles give you guidance on leak testing. Although the second one is from the USA, it is still relevant.
http://www.on365.co.uk/Articles/Guide_to_Good_Leak_Testing.aspx
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/RealZeroGuidetoGoodLeakTesting.pdf

Alcohols Limited fined £295,000 after an employee was engulfed in flames.

Alcohols Limited, a distillery in Oldbury was fined £295,000 (inc.costs) after an employee was engulfed in flames in a fire that destroyed the warehouse and its contents.

The circumstances were:

• On 26 November 2012, ethyl acetate, which is a highly flammable liquid, was being transferred from a bulk storage tank into an intermediate bulk container.
• There was poor maintenance of pipework and associated valves. 
• There was a failure to competently inspect the equipment or monitor the systems of work.
• This ignited, possibly caused by a discharge of static electricity generated by the transfer of the liquid.
• A 21-year-old employee was engulfed in flames. 
• He sustained twenty percent burns to his head, neck and hands.
• The fire destroyed the warehouse and caused damage to nearby cars and houses. 

The HSE inspector said:
“Companies that fail to ensure the integrity of their safety critical equipment place their employees, members of the public, emergency services and their entire livelihood at risk of serious harm. Poor management of highly flammable liquids can have catastrophic results both for individuals and businesses.”

Defeated interlock on CNC lathe causes severed finger and fine of £16,000,

Repro Engineering Limited, a Hampshire based engineering firm was fined £16,222 (inc.costs) after a worker severed a finger in a metal working lathe.

The circumstances were:

• The company allowed the custom  practice of defeating interlocks on CNC metal working lathes.
• This meant that machines could be operated whilst allowing access to the moving parts.
• His hand came into contact with the moving parts of the machine.
• This resulted in one of his fingers being severed.

The HSE inspector said:
“This incident could have been prevented by more active and robust management action, it sends out a message to employers that tampering with safety devices can lead to injury and prosecution”

Presbar Diecastings Ltd, fined £149,788 after worker suffers serious burns

Manchester aluminium diecasting producer Presbar Diecastings Ltd,was fined £149,788 (inc.costs) after a worker suffered life threatening injuries when he became trapped in a machine.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred on am aluminium diecasting machine.
• The machine was only partially guarded making access to the ladle possible.
• This was despite there being a risk assessment in place at the time of the incident identifying the hazard of contact or entrapment with the ladle
• On 7 July 2015 a worker had entered the middle of the aluminium diecasting machine between the furnace pot and the front bar to clear a build up of metal.
• Whilst carrying out this routine procedure the robot arm started to move, the worker tried to move out of the way but was trapped by the ladle containing 400 C molten metal attached to the robot arm.
• He suffered a cardiac arrest and fourth degree burns.

The HSE Inspector said:
“A man suffered life changing injuries which could have been prevented if the machine had been properly guarded. Employers should ensure that they regularly check, assess and review the guarding on their machinery to ensure that all access to dangerous parts in prevented.”

Templetown Canopies fined £13,000 for a lack of adequate controls for styrene fumes.

Templetown Canopies Limited, a manufacturing company based in South Shields was fined £13,000 (inc.costs) for health and safety failures.  FFI is additional to this.

The circumstances were:

• The company used styrene in their production of fibre glass door and window canopies. 
• This substance is hazardous to health and exposure can cause irritation to the nose, throat and lungs.
• It can also have a neurological effect including difficulty in concentrating, drowsiness, headaches and nausea.
• The company should have had an extraction system to remove the fume and provide masks with the correct filters to prevent operators inhaling it.
• An inspection was carried out on 1 May 2013 and an improvement notice was served on 3 May 2013.
• The company did not take action to comply with the Improvement Notice until they moved premises in March 2015.
• Between May 2013 and February 2015, Templetown Canopies did not adequately control exposure of their employees to styrene. 

The HSE Inspector said: “ Workers’ health was put at risk from exposure to styrene for a period of 22 months, even after the company had been made aware of the actions it needed to take. Whilst HSE is sympathetic to the pressures faced by small businesses, this is simply not acceptable. Employers need to take action to ensure they are providing adequate control to protect the health of their employees.”

Herbs in a Bottle were fined £50,000 after a worker died from exposure to a toxic gas.

Herbs in a Bottle Limited, a medicinal herbal manufacturing company in Lincolnshire, was fined £49,842 (inc.costs) after a worker died from exposure to a toxic gas.

The circumstances were:

• On 2 September 2014, Karl Brader was using cleaning chemicals to clean a changing room.
• No Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) assessment had been carried out.
• Mr Brader had not been trained in the safe use of chemicals.
• He was exposed to a toxic gas (likely to be chlorine) and died at the scene.

The HSE Inspector said:
“This was a tragic industrial incident that was entirely preventable had suitable precautions been taken. Karl Brader had not received any training in the safe use of hazardous chemicals and as a result died from the exposure to a toxic gas. Companies should ensure that they assess all the risks associated with the use of dangerous chemical and that exposure to their employees is either eliminated or minimised.”

Concrete Fabrications Ltd., fined £107,000 after worker's arm was torn off in conveyor

Concrete Fabrications Ltd., a Bristol based manufacturer of concrete products was fined £107,758 (inc.costs) after a worker’s arm was torn off when it was pulled into the rotating tail pulley of a conveyor belt.

The circumstances were:

• On 18 May 2015 a worker had to adjust tensioning rods which were located inside the machine’s guards, in close proximity to the conveyor belt and rotating tail pulley.
• A sufficient risk assessment would have identified the risks associated with tracking conveyor belts, and identified appropriate control measures.
• There needs to be clear procedures regarding maintenance and adjustments of machinery. 
• Arrangements should be in place to ensure that machinery is not run without the necessary guarding in place, and that clear isolation and lock off procedures exist.
• However, an unsafe system of work existed for the maintenance of machinery, in so much that the dangerous moving parts of the machine were exposed during maintenance operations.
• The worker noticed that aggregate had built up on the tensioning rod and he tried to knock off the material with a hammer so he could use a spanner to adjust the rod. 
• However, the hammer was dragged into the rotating machinery along with the employee’s arm which was severed between the shoulder and the elbow.

Pauls Malt fined over £100,000 for fall due to poor work at height method of work

Pauls Malt Limited was fined £102,257 (inc.costs) after an agency worker was injured when he fell from a ladder.

The circumstances were:

• The worker was in the process of checking the fill level of the malt in a container at the West Knapton malting factory, near Malton. 
• The container was fitted with a full-size fabric liner with a high level loading flap which would be zipped up once the container was full.
• The company had not carried out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment of the work at height involved in closing the zipped flaps on the fabric liners.
• A system of work had developed which involved propping a 4-metre long ladder against the rear of the container to gain access to the zip-up flap. The ladder was too long for this purpose and was propped at too shallow an angle.
• On 6 May 2015, the worker was checking the fill level when the foot of the ladder slipped outwards, causing the agency worker to fall 2m with the ladder.
• He sustained two fractures to his right foot and bruising to his chest and head injuries.

Lack of non-standard work system nearly causes death

Essential Supply Products Limited, a Worcestershire-based manufacturer was fined £22,714 (inc. costs) after a worker nearly lost his life when a door collapsed and pinned him to a baler.

The circumstances were:

• On 5 May 2015, two maintenance workers were replacing the bottom of a heavy sectional door at the factory.
• Managers had failed to recognise the risks involved in the maintenance work that was taking place. 
• There was no appropriate equipment, instruction or training provided to the workers to ensure the method of work was safe.
• While removing the hinges and brackets the door collapsed, pinning one of the workers between it and a baler that was next to the door.
• The worker suffered serious injuries including broken ribs and asphyxiation which led to a lost of consciousness for eight hours. He has since made a full recovery.

This is a classic example of non-standard work. Refer to SSS White Paper 23 for how to control non-standard operations.

Solution to HMRC's RTI program installation

For those, like me, that get an error message with HMRC's RTI program on a new computer (and get no help from HMRC) then this is the solution from Phil Shepton:

Solved this one on Win 10 64bit saying I haven't got permission. This was a new laptop.

You do not need to alter any permissions at all or mess with security in any way. This is a totally safe and simple process. It does not alter windows files or settings in any way.

Install the RTI as usual and run it, when it says you don't have permission to access database just close RTI.

Open windows explorer, at the top go to 'view' and tick 'hidden items' and 'file extensions'

1) Get a current backup which is in zip format and open it in windows explorer. You will see three files.

2) Highlight and Copy these three files. (no need to extract them first, just copy them)

3) Go to c:\users\**your username**\appdata\roaming\HMRC\payetools-rti folder

4) delete the files in here including the sqlite3.db file which is causing the problem

5) paste the files from your backup in this folder (includes a new sqlite3.db file)

RTI will now open

Open RTI Basic tools and your current data will load.

Hope it helps, it took an hour to figure this way of doing it, , but at least it works.

Solution to HMRC's RTI program installation

For those, like me, that get an error message with HMRC's RTI program on a new computer (and get no help from HMRC) then this is the solution from Phil Shepton:

Solved this one on Win 10 64bit saying I haven't got permission. This was a new laptop.

You do not need to alter any permissions at all or mess with security in any way. This is a totally safe and simple process. It does not alter windows files or settings in any way.

Install the RTI as usual and run it, when it says you don't have permission to access database just close RTI.

Open windows explorer, at the top go to 'view' and tick 'hidden items' and 'file extensions'

1) Get a current backup which is in zip format and open it in windows explorer. You will see three files.

2) Highlight and Copy these three files. (no need to extract them first, just copy them)

3) Go to c:\users\**your username**\appdata\roaming\HMRC\payetools-rti folder

4) delete the files in here including the sqlite3.db file which is causing the problem

5) paste the files from your backup in this folder (includes a new sqlite3.db file)

RTI will now open

Open RTI Basic tools and your current data will load.

Hope it helps, it took an hour to figure this way of doing it, , but at least it works.

Lack of guarding causes loss of 2 fingers in power press

Roberts Metal Packaging Limited, a London-based metal packaging company was fined £10,520 (inc.costs) after a worker trapped his hand in a power press and lost two fingers.

The circumstances were:

• The company had failed to prevent access to this dangerous part of the machinery.
• An employee got his left hand trapped underneath the punch on a mechanical power-press.
• He suffered severe damage to his hand including the loss of 2 fingers

Company fined £287,000 after confined space incident

John Pointon and Sons Limited, a food waste disposal and recycling firm, was fined £287,362 (inc.costs) after three employees were overcome by toxic gases, including hydrogen sulphide, and a reduced oxygen atmosphere in an animal waste facility.

The circumstances were:

• The company had been prosecuted twice before for two fatal incidents which involved confined space entry.
• The company still had no confined spaces procedure.
• On 23 April 2014, an employee accessed a compartment within an animal waste trailer to free animal waste and was overcome by the gases.
• Subsequently, two further employees entered the waste compartment and were also overcome by the gases.

Hereford company and their H&S advisor fined after person became skin sensitised to ingredients in rubber sealant

Hereford-based TRP Polymer Solutions Limited, which manufactures rubber sealants, was fined £46,529 (inc.costs) after a worker contracted allergic contact dermatitis.

The circumstances were:

• Employees were exposed to sensitising ingredients in rubber compounds.
• The company’s health and safety advisor failed to understand the underlying issues to the level required for the company to understand its responsibilities.
• The company failed to assess risks from products used or manage those risks.
• The employee contracted the skin disease

The company’s health and safety advisor was fined £1200 (inc.costs) for failing to carry out her duty under the act to a level of competence expected by someone carrying out her role.

Don't omit to gather evidence at the time of an accident at work

Of course, what we really want to do is avoid accidents but they sometimes happen.

If someone has been injured, then the first task must be to carry out first aid and call an ambulance if appropriate. 
And then you need to ensure that the workplace is safe.

But, you mustn't relax once that is done and I've seen many instances where people have failed to carry out the following steps:

1. Take photographs of the accident scene. It may be necessary to do some of this before the workplace is made safe. As cameras are now on everyone's mobile phone, then this is dead easy.
2. Gather any items which may be relevant to the accident.  Even if they are broken, do not throw these away.
3. Then carry out an investigation

More information on how to investigate an accident are available at http://bit.ly/1UiTAsV

£227,000 fine for hand arm vibration cases.

Asset International Limited, a pipe manufacturing company based in Newport, was fined £227,724 (inc.costs) for seven instances of safety failings caused by the use of vibrating tools.

The circumstances were:

• Employees of Asset International Limited used vibrating tools.
• Neither a sufficient risk assessment nor health surveillance had been carried out.
• Proper training had not been carried out and there were no practical controls to reduce vibration risk.
• There were seven reported cases of Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) or Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) between April 2014 and July 2015.

The HSE inspector said: “The serious and irreversible risks from Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome caused by work with vibrating tools are well known and guidance has been in place since the early 1990s. This case shows there is no excuse for not putting in place a management system which includes risk assessment, control measures, health surveillance and information and training to reduce these risks to as low a level as is reasonably practicable.”

Balfour Beatty fined £2.6M following death when trench collapsed.

Balfour Beatty was fined £2.6 million plus £54,000 costs after an employee was killed when the trench he was working in collapsed on him in Lancashire.
The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred on an onshore site connected to an offshore windfarm that was being built off the coast by Heysham, Lancashire.  
• There was a trench dug to a depth of 2.4 metres, without any shoring.
• Balfour Beatty failed to adequately risk assess the works or control the way in which the excavation took place.
• James Sim was a 32-year-old sub-contractor working on behalf of Balfour Beatty Utility Solutions Limited.
• Mr Sim was killed when he became trapped in the trench after it collapsed on him.

The HSE inspector said : 
“The level of this fine should serve as a warning to industry not to ignore health and safety matters. Balfour Beatty failed to adequately assess, plan and supervise the work being undertaken. Trench collapses are easy to prevent, and it is disappointing that James’ life was lost in such a tragic way. The family has shown great patience and support throughout this investigation which is a credit to both them and James’ memory.”

SSS note:  This is very similar to the first case brought under the Corporate Manslaughter Act against Cotswold Geotech where a trench collapsed.

McCains fined £800,000 and employee nearly lost arm

Major frozen food manufacturer McCains was fined £812,831 (inc.costs) for safety failings after an employee nearly lost his arm.

The circumstances were:

• A risk assessment of the machine by the company failed to recognise the danger of unguarded areas on a bypass conveyor.
• The conveyor did not have the correct guards fitted.
• A 34-year-old employee was attempting to check the condition of the head roller on the conveyor. 
• While doing this his arm became entangled in the machinery and his arm was almost severed. 
• Although his arm was saved, he now has limited movement in his hand.

Cumbria Crystal fined £15,000 for loss of finger

Lead crystal manufacturer Cumbria Crystal was fined £15,000 after an employee suffered a serious hand injury while using machinery.
The circumstances were:

• Cumbria Crystal have a pillar drill which can be used for reaming the neck of a glass bottle.
• No risk assessment had been carried out.
• As a consequence, no reasonably practical control measures were in place.
• There were no control measures to prevent accessing dangerous parts of the machine.
• On 20 February 2015, Laura Ponsford was using the drill to widen (or ream) the neck of a glass bottle. 
• The chuck and reamer were unguarded.  
• Mrs Ponsford was wearing latex gloves while performing this task.
• The glove on her right hand became entangled within the rotating parts of the reamer resulting in the middle finger of her hand being severed.
• She underwent 10 hours of surgery to reattach the finger but unfortunately she was later told the operation had not been successful and had to undergo a further operation in March 2015 to have the finger surgically amputated to below the second knuckle.

The HSE inspector said:
“This incident could have been prevented simply by providing guarding to prevent access to dangerous parts of the machine. The need to guard dangerous parts of machinery is well known with established industry guidance available, and in this case, the result of that guidance being ignored is a serious injury to a young woman.”

Severfield fined £191,000 after death of forklift truck driver

Severfield (UK) Limited, a large steel fabrication company, was fined £191,000 (inc.costs) after a forklift truck operator was killed when the truck he was operating overturned. 
The offence was not a significant cause of the fatal accident.

The circumstances were:

• Severfield failed to manage forklift truck driving operations. 
• They did not enforce the wearing of seat-belts or control the speed at which some FLT operators drove their trucks.
• Kelvin McGibbon was reversing the forklift truck on 13 March 2013.
• He was not wearing a seatbelt.
• The forklift truck struck some steps causing it to overturn.
• Mr McGibbon suffered crush injuries which proved fatal. 

The HSE inspector said:
“A company has a legal duty for the health and safety of people working on its site, whether they are employees or not. They are required to assess risks, eliminate them where possible and enforce proper control measures, such as seat belt wear, by checking that safe driving practices are being followed to deal with the risks that remain. Sadly, in this case, the prosecution shows that the company’s management of FLT driving operations and risk control measures failed which exposed employees to danger.”

Ebbw Vale vehicle seat manufacturing company fined £52,010 after ignition of release agent

Sears Manufacturing Company (Europe) Limited, an  Ebbw Vale vehicle seat manufacturing company, was fined £52,010 (inc. costs) after a worker was injured from an explosion.

The circumstances were:

• Highly flammable release agent is used to prevent dispensed foam sticking to the seat mould.
• The Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 (DSEAR) require an assessment to have been carried out and suitable control measures put in place to prevent an explosion.
• A failure to have suitable control measures in place caused the release agent to ignite on 26 January 2015.
• An operator suffered burns to his head and hands.

Pseudo Emergency stop

I found this on 5 machines today.

Looks like an emergency stop because it is a yellow box with a red mushroom headed button.
But the button doesn't move when you press it because it's not an emergency stop.

Slide the button to one side and it allows the lid to hinge up to expose the start and stop controls.

In this picture there are 3 yellow boxes with red mushroom head buttons. In an emergency, I'd go for the top one, but that's the spurious one.

There are two problems with this device:

1. People recognise red mushroom buttons on a yellow background as emergency stops and therefore will go for this device in an emergency; I know I would.
2. The practice of hiding the real stop button behind the cover is an impediment to stopping the machine, whether in an emergency or not.

What we're doing is to cut off the hinged lid so you end up with the stop and start buttons in a yellow box.

Note that these machines are from a British company, not a company in a distant country who may be unaware of harmonised European standards.