Worker falls when standing on pallet on forklft truck

LE Jones Ltd, a haulage company of Ruthin, was fined £19,041 (inc. costs) after an employee fell 2m from a pallet on the forks of a forklift truck on 22 February 2011.
The circumstances were:

• The employee was asked to repair a high level tear in the curtain sided lorry trailer unit
• The work had not been properly planned and no suitable equipment had been provided by the company.
• The firm also failed to monitor and supervise the work of its employees.
• To reach the tear, he got on top of a wooden pallet which was raised off the ground by a forklift. 
• After completing the work, he called for another worker to lower him down. 
• The lift truck lurched backwards, causing him to fall off the pallet.
• He suffered serious fractures to both his heels

The HSE Inspector  said: "This entirely preventable incident could have caused much more serious or even life-changing injuries. The company could have provided a permanent gantry or a cherry-picker for routine repairs on its quite large road fleet. Work at height must be properly planned and organised by a competent person. This prosecution should send a strong signal to all companies that improvised work platforms are not acceptable in the modern workplace and HSE will take action where ineffectual monitoring and supervision leads to any incident."

Company fined £64,000 because most machines were unsafe

Sartex Quilts and Textiles Ltd., of Rochdale were fined £64,614 (inc. costs) after a health and safety inspection found the majority of its machines were unsafe to use.

An HSE inspection found (during inspections which had to be extended to a second day):

• There were dozens of missing or inadequate guards on machines.
• One machine, used to compact bales of quilt, had been wrapped with pieces of cardboard as the only way of protecting workers from the dangerous moving parts inside.
• A lose board had been placed over a large electric motor and pulley system on another machine.

The HSE:

• Issued 3 prohibition notices
• Issued 12 improvement notices
• Prosecuted Sartex

An HSE Inspector said:
"This was one of the worst cases of missing or inadequate guards I or my colleagues have ever seen. Every corner we turned, we found another issue. The company put production before health and safety and put the lives of its employees in danger as a result. Common sense should have meant they didn't use cardboard to cover dangerous moving parts, but that's exactly what we found on one machine. Hundreds of injuries are reported every year across Great Britain caused by poor or missing guards, and it's only luck that no one has been seriously injured or even killed at Sartex Quilts' factory in Rochdale."

Benefits of ISO 9001 certification beyond the badge

Some people seek certification to ISO 9001 to give them a marketing advantage.  Whilst it generally does this, wise people will also make use of the benefits that having a formalised quality management system brings. Here are three examples from companies with whom we have worked.

Company A
Company A had a proliferation of spreadsheets carrying information about quotations and orders. Essentially, everyone did their own thing, with the best of intentions. However, there are two problems with this situation:

1. There is the cost incurred in everyone entering data into their own spreadsheets, and
2. There is a good chance that there will be disparities. These occur because of either keying-in errors or timing differences. Say an order is received but it is slightly different to that which was quoted; if all the spreadsheets aren't updated at the same time, then which ones contain the correct data?

Company A decided on a 2-step approach.  Initially, they reduced the number of spreadsheets, and as a longer term solution, are considering a relational database system.

Company B
Company B are an engineering company. They used the systems set up in their quality management system, used with the SSS INTACT system, to track the incidence and costs of both internal problems and customer complaints. They were able, for litte cost, to analyse the cause and costs of these and determine actions to prevent recurrence. They achieved both cost savings and improved customer relations because of the reduction in issues which could be the cause of a customer complaint. 

Company C
Company C are another engineering company. Without a formal calibration system, they ran the risk that the measuring equipment they were using might be incorrect. This was a high-risk situation, with the potential for incorrect products being shipped to clients resulting in high costs of replacement and gaining a poor reputation. 

Company C decided to buy appropriate calibrated slip gauges (they did not need a full set) and set up a simple calibration programme, with records for each measuring device. Apart from the initial cost for the slip gauges, the on-going cost is low and so the cost of calibration is little when compared with the risk of using uncalibrated measuring devices.

See more about ISO 9001 systems support from SSS
See more about INTACT

Failure to organise non-standard work results in 6m fall

Dollcast of Tonypandy were fined £19,671 (inc. costs) after a contractor fell 6m during a lighting maintenance operation.

The circumstances were:

• The contractor was using a scissor lift to replace high level lights in a fabrication shop.
• There was no system of work in place for the contractor to carry out his task safely.
• No attempt was made to isolate an overhead gantry crane which was used in that area.
• Another worker was using the gantry crane to move steel around the shop when it struck the scissor lift.
• The contractor fell to the factory floor below and suffered five broken ribs, lacerations to his elbow and injuries to his hips.

The HSE Inspector  said:
"This was a serious incident and, in a fall of six metres, this worker was lucky not to have lost his life. It was also needless and avoidable. The incident could have easily been prevented if a simple, suitable system of work had been used by Dollcast, including the secure isolation of the overhead crane from its power supply. This would have been a straightforward process of establishing a break in the power supply, normally by using a lockable isolator switch, and then securing the switch in the 'off' position using a padlock to prevent it being switched back on until the maintenance work had finished. Working at height is a significant risk activity across all industries. Last year more than 6,300 employees suffered major injuries following a fall. Working at height must always be properly planned."

The SSS 5-Principle approach

All of the work that Strategic Safety Systems does, whether it is for safety, environment, quality of business improvment, follows the 5 principles shown below:

• No weighty documentation; implementation focussed
  We avoid big, thick manuals which nobody can use.  Our prime concern is with making sure everything we provide can be readily implemented.
• We do the work
  We don't provide you with masses of forms and paperwork. We do the work for you, involving key people if you want.
• Get in close
  We avoid  the "guy in the suit with a clipboard" scenario. We get in close, communicate with operators and other personnel and understand whatt they do.
• No long-term tie-in
  Some service providers expect you t o sign up for 2 or 3 years. We don't  do that. You pay for what has been delivered and if you don't like it, you can terminate the agreement at any time. (Nobody does that, however.)
• Competence
  Whilst  SSS  cover many areas, if your requirement  is outside our level of competence, we tell you there and then. And if we can, we will recommend a suitable alternative provider.

Finger lost due to lack of guarding

An employee of Ardagh Metal Packaging lost his finger on an unguarded part of machinery.
The circumstances were:

• The machine had been supplied by Crabtree without adequate guarding
  
• Ardagh failed to identify the risks to workers from the unguarded conveyor
  
• The employee, Brain Allen, was feeding the metal sheets into the conveyor of a coating machine when his wedding ring got caught and his finger was severed.

Ardagh Metal Packaging (UK) Ltd, was fined £21,754 (inc costs) after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.
Crabtree of Gateshead Ltd, was fined £17,570 (inc. costs) after pleading guilty breaching of Regulation 11(1) of the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 1992.

The HSE Inspector said:
"Brian Allen sustained a painful injury as a result of an incident that was entirely avoidable. Risk assessments by Crabtree identified that the conveyor could cause injury and a warning was included in the operating manual, but they nonetheless supplied the machine without adequate guarding. Ardagh, meanwhile, failed to identify the risk despite the practice of hand feeding sheets into the conveyor being well known to operators. This case demonstrates the need for employers to carry out their own assessment of the risks posed by machinery, based on the circumstances in which the equipment will be used. It is not sufficient to assume that is safe as soon as it is purchased. Involving workers in the risk assessment process is crucial. Had the employees been consulted by either company it would have been apparent that hand feeding of sheets onto the conveyor took place. This would have alerted Ardagh and Crabtree to the need for adequate guarding, which has now been installed."

Companies fined after fall from height when accessing machine

AAA Linen and Laundryquip LLP have both been fined for safety breaches after a worker fell from a ladder while trying to clear a blockage in an industrial-sized laundry machine.
The circumstances were:

• Laundryquip LLP had provided the reconditioned machine and installed it without suitable access steps that had been ordered by AAA Linen Services.
  
• Instead, AAA provided workers with a standard office chair to climb on when they needed to access the machine.
  
• On 20 December 2010 a team leader at AAA Linen Services decided to use a ladder to reach and clear a machine blockage after having nearly fallen on a previous occasion while using the chair.
  
• The unsecured ladder slipped sending her falling to the factory floor.
  
• She shattered her left ankle after she fell when the ladder slipped. 

Laundryquip  was fined  £21,500 (inc costs).
AAA Linen Services Ltd was fined £9,500 inc costs).

The HSE Inspector said:
"AAA Linen failed to ensure their employees' safety when they needed to work at height to clear blockages on this large laundry machine. A chair was clearly the wrong choice of equipment and exposed workers to unnecessary risk. Their action led to an avoidable incident in which a woman was caused a great deal of pain and suffering. All work at height must be properly planned, organised and carried out by competent persons. Measures need to be put in place to avoid, prevent or reduce the risks of falls. Laundryquip LLP, as the supplier of the machine, had a duty to ensure that the machine was safe when put to use and, in this instance, they fell well below the acceptable standard of care.
Falls from height remain the single biggest cause of workplace deaths and one of the main causes of injury."