Latest situation on the UKCA mark

Like with most of the Brexit situation, the UKCA mark is a confusing mess.  Originally, the UKCA mark was supposed to replace the CE mark for equipment which originated in the UK and stayed here, with this coming into force at the end of 2020.  

Now it has changed to the UK Government making provision for the UKCA mark, but having it being complimentary to the CE mark and not replacing it.   The default would be the CE mark, but the UKCA mark is there in case there are circumstances where the CE mark cannot be used.  An example of this would be if a company had made use of a UK Approved Body.

See support for machinery manufacturers on CE marking from Strategic Safety Systems Ltd.

Mr Bagel’s Limited fined £9,000 after employee loses hand whilst clearing a blockage

Mr Bagel’s Limited. a bakery,  was fined £9,000 (inc.costs) after an employee amputated his right hand on a bagel production line.

The circumstances were:

• The mixer on the bagel production line did not have adequate measures in place to prevent access to the dangerous parts.
• Machine blockages are common events, but Mr Bagel’s did not have a safe system of work for clearing them.  
• A safe system of work would have included isolating the machine before attempting to clear the blockage.
• On 2 October 2017, an employee was attempting to clear dough that had become jammed. 
• As the dough was cleared, the machine restarted dragging the victim’s arm into the danger zone. 
• His hand was amputated at the wrist.

The HSE inspector said:
“This injury was easily prevented. Machine blockages are routine events; the risk to a person from clearing them should have been identified. Employers should make sure they properly assess and apply effective control measures to minimise the risk from dangerous parts of machinery.”

Scapa fined £135,000 after fatal accident due to unguarded in-running nips

Scapa UK Limited , which manufactures adhesive tape, was fined £135,192 (inc.costs) after a worker was fatally injured while operating a rewind/slitting machine.

The circumstances were:

• The rewind/slitting machine draws a large roll of adhesive material and slits it into narrower rolls.
• The risk assessment for the machine was inadequate because it failed to identify the in-running nips and other hazards on the machine. 
• Scapa previously received advice in 2012 from both HSE and an external consultant in relation to the guarding of machinery on site, but had failed to take action to ensure the necessary guarding.
• As a result, it still had unguarded in-running nips.
• In addition, operators were not provided adequate information and training on the risks posed by this machine.
• On 10 April 2018, Mr Brett Dolby was operating the machine.
• He was drawn into an in-running nip and suffered fatal injuries

The HSE inspector said:
“This tragic incident could easily have been prevented if the company had properly assessed and applied effective control measures to minimise the risks from dangerous parts of the machinery. The dangers associated with in-running nips are well known, and a wealth of advice and guidance is freely available from HSE and other organisations. Employers should be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below the required standards.”

C & R Powder Coating and Welding Fabrication Ltd., was £30,338 after worker was hit by 350kg of plastic sheeting

 Poole-based C & R Powder Coating and Welding Fabrication Ltd., was fined £30,338 (inc.costs) after polycarbonnate sheets fell from an inadequate trolley, hitting a worker.

The circumstances were:

• On 27 July 2017, the worker was checking the straps on a wheeled A-frame trolley.
• The trolley contained ten 6m long polycarbonate sheets, each weighing 35kg.
• The trolley was unsuitable for the storage and transport of the plastic sheets because it was not sufficiently long enough. 
• Also, it had no means for ensuring the straps being used would stay in place.
• The load unexpectedly slipped, hitting him and pushing him to the ground.
• Colleagues had to lift the sheets off him.
• He suffered shattered lumbar vertebrae and had to be kept in a lying down position on his back for two weeks in hospital.

The HSE Inspector said:
“This incident could so easily have been avoided by simply carrying out safe working practices and ensuring work equipment is suitable for the purpose for which it is to be used. Accidents like this can happen with plastic sheets but equally with wood board, steel plate or stone slabs. Any flat profile material should be secured against falling or slipping out as the consequences can be a serious injury or even a fatality.”

Leeds and Bradford Boiler Co Ltd fined £127,690 after accident during a crane lifting operation.

Leeds and Bradford Boiler Co Ltd was fined £127,692 (inc. costs) after a machinist broke his upper arm and suffered crush injuries to his lower arm during a lifting operation on a machine tool.

The circumstances comprised the following:

• The accident occurred on 2 November 2018 whilst the employee was fitting a 2-tonne metal plate to a vertical borer so it could be machined.
• The plate was not sitting flush with the table due to dirt or debris.
• There was no assessment or safe system of work for lifting operations or what to do in this situation.
• He raised one side of the metal plate above the machine table using an overhead crane with C shaped hook so that he could clean underneath with a rag.
• While he was doing this the cover plate slipped off the lifting attachment trapping his arm underneath. 
• He has had to undergo several long operations on his lower and upper arm and is unlikely to regain full function in his right arm.

The HSE inspector commented: 
“Lifting operations and foreseeable activities including cleaning should be properly assessed and planned. Other employees were also at risk of injury by falling metal plates. This incident could so easily have been avoided by using suitable lifting accessories, implementing safe working practices, and ensuring these are followed through appropriate supervision and monitoring.”

HSE publishes occupational fatal injury rates for 2019-20

The HSE has published its report on fatalities for April 2019 to March 2020.

Whilst the rate in the last century saw a substantial drop, this century has been broadly flat. 
Note that the HSE state that the downturn in the economy due to Covid19 in the last part of the date range may have affected the data.

There were 11 killed with the majority in Construction (4). followed by Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing (20) and then Manufacturing (15).

The predominant cause is falls from height, followed by being struck by a moving vehicle.

Construction has seen an increase in the number of fatalities (40) from last year (31). although the 5-yearly average is 37.

The rate of fatalities per 100,000 workers is skewed by the low number of workers in the 65+ bracket.

The importance of competent H&S advices

There have been two recent prosecutions which show how critical it is to obtain competent health and safety advice when you outsource this:

In the first one, Self-employed consultant Clive Weal was fined £1,400 for  providing health and safety advice on technical and complex matters while not being qualified to advise his clients in relation to hand arm vibration, work place noise and the control of substances hazardous to health. This resulted in the inadequate recommendation of ‘anti vibration gloves’ as an appropriate control measure and the failure to identify that paints containing isocyanates can cause asthma. See  https://bit.ly/3gtHv2W for details.

In the second one, consultant company S & Ash Ltd was fined £12,716 after a worker developed Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS) following their health surveillance.  The employer was fined £147,658.  See https://bit.ly/31grSpk for details.

As a starting point, you need to confirm that your consultant is suitably qualified, with CMIOSH1 or MIIRSM2 as being indicators that he or she meets the initial and continual requirements of a professional body.

For reference, I'm CMIOSH.

As a requirement of membership, you have to operate only within areas of your own competence.  One of my 5 Principles is that I do this, and if your requirement is outside my level of competence, I tell you there and then. And if I can, I will recommend a suitable alternative provider.

1 Chartered Member of the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health

2 Member of the International Institute of Risk and Safety Management

Perrys Motor Sales fined £147,658 and consultants, S & Ash Ltd fined £12,716 after a worker developed Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome

Motor sales company, Perrys Motor Sales Ltd (PMS) were fined £147,658 (inc.costs) and Occupational Health & Safety Consultants, S & Ash Ltd fined £12,716 (inc.costs) after a worker developed Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS). 
S & Ash Ltd. were previously known as Sound Advice Safety and Health Ltd.

The circumstances were:

• An employee of PMS was a small to medium area repair technology (SMART) repairer. 
• He regularly used handheld power tools to undertake small scale vehicle body work repairs.
• S & Ash Ltd was engaged by PMS to provide HAVS health surveillance for employees.
• S & Ash Ltd failed to provide suitable and accurate advice to PMS of the HAVS risks.
• S & Ash Ltd  failed to inform the employee of the results of his health surveillance, even when specifically requested to do so by him.
• PMS had failed to adequately assess and control the foreseeable risk to SMART repairers. 
• Following the diagnosis, PMS took no action to protect the employee from further damage to his health.
• The employee developed HAVS.
• His condition was not reported under RIDDOR.

TheHSE inspector said:
“Vibration can cause long-term painful damage to hands and fingers. The motor vehicle repair trade must understand the importance of suitable risk assessments and having a robust occupational health and safety management system. Employers should ensure that the results of health surveillance are acted upon and employees are protected from the risks from HAV when working with handheld power tools. Occupational health providers are in a unique position in safeguarding the health of employees and must provide accurate reports to employers following HAV health surveillance. Employers must act on these reports.”

West Design Products Ltd, fined £95,184 after worker's fingers were crushed by unguarded machine

Plymouth based West Design Products Ltd, who manufacture and edit craft paper for retail, including printing, punching and cutting, were fined £95,184 (Inc.costs) after a worker suffered serious injuries when her hand was caught in machinery.

The circumstances were:

• The accident occurred on a paper punching machine used to punch holes so that paper sheets can be bound.
• Paper is inserted into a slot underneath a Perspex guard and the punch operation is activated by pressing a foot pedal on the floor. 
• There was no interlocking switch attached to the guard to prevent the use of the machine when the guard was removed. 
• There was also no shroud for the foot pedal to prevent accidental activation.
• On 14 September 2017, 22-year-old employee Charlotte Sargent was operating this machine.
• Neither Miss Sargent or her supervisor were suitably trained. 
• They had not been shown the operating manual or the safe system of work for the Punch machine before the incident.
• Whilst adjusting the settings of the machine, Miss Sargent placed her fingers between the die plates to tighten them in place. 
• Her foot inadvertently hit the unshrouded foot pedal. 
• The die plates moved up, crushing her fingers between the plates and a metal bar. 
• This led to the partial amputation of both her middle and index finger on her left hand.

The HSE inspector said:
“Miss Sargent’s injuries have been life changing. This incident was foreseeable and preventable.
Employers should make sure they properly assess and apply effective control measures to minimise the risk from dangerous parts of machinery.”

Treanor Pujol Ltd. fined £341,325 for two accidentts including a fatality

Concrete manufacturer Treanor Pujol Ltd was fined £341,325 (inc.costs) following two separate incidents, including the death of an employee and series injuries to a second worker.

The circumstances of the first incident were:

• It was the nature of production for machines to routinely pass each other on adjacent lines.
• Treanor Pujol Ltd failed to identify the risk of crushing posed by the passing machines.
• On lines 11 and 12 the gap between the passing bed cleaner and saw machines was very small – between 65 and 93mm at different parts of the frames. 
• They failed to devise a safe system of work to control this risk.
• They failed to provide adequate training in such a procedure to employees.
• On 5 June 2014 Treanor employee Mathew Fulleylove, 30, was operating a mobile saw unit on Line 12.
• Another employee was operating a mobile bed cleaner on Line 11.
• Mr Fulleylove was standing on the footwell of the saw unit as the other machine passed on the adjacent production line. 
• As the bed cleaner came past, Matthew’s head was crushed between the frames of the two machines and he was killed instantly.

The circumstances of the second incident were:

• The accident occurred on a hooks machine, which embeds hooks into precast concrete.
• The machine was not fitted with working interlocked guards which prevent access to hazardous areas.
• On 12 April 2018, the machine was being operated when a fault developed.
• While an employee was attempting to reset the machine his elbow leant on a concrete dispenser box and a metal shutter.
• The metal shutter closed, trapping his hand resulting in a fracture and partial de-gloving of his left hand. 

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigators also identified several electrical safety failings:

• These included electrical equipment not being suitably constructed or protected from the environment. 
• It was left in wet, dirty, dusty and corrosive conditions, which resulted in rapid deterioration and safety features becoming inoperable over time. T

The HSE inspector said:
“Treanor Pujol Ltd should have identified the risk of crushing between passing machines on the production lines. The company should have taken steps to reduce and control the residual risk, organising production to minimise the likelihood of machines passing each other on adjacent lines, as well as devising and implementing a safe system of work. This should have included a designated place of safety where operators were required to stand as a machine passed. The operator’s manual for the bed cleaning machine stated an exclusion zone around the machine at 655mm should be implemented. If this had been in place, it would have addressed the significant crushing hazard and prevented the death of Mr Fulleylove.

In regard to the second incident, the company should have ensured that the dangerous parts of the Hooks Machine could not be accessed by anyone whilst they were moving by way of suitable guarding arrangements. Duty holders should ensure they carry out site specific risk assessments to identify any issues relevant to a particular location, task or piece of equipment. It is important to ensure where safe systems of work are required, employees are properly trained and monitored to ensure the correct way of working is followed.”