3 companies fined a total of £77,000 after incidents because of poor H&S consultancy

An employer and two safety consultancies were fined after 2 incidents at the Haverhill site of Jan Cavelle Furniture Company.

The circumstances were:

• In 2013, Jan Cavelle Furniture Company commissioned Worksafe Training & Consultancy Ltd., to review all risk assessments and work procedures and to provide updated risk assessments and procedures where required.
• Worksafe Training & Consultancy sub-contracted this work to Tony Baker of Leading Health & Safety Consultants Ltd., who provided risk assessments and recommendations relevant to both the biscuit cutter and the overhead router. 
• The risk assessments and procedures provided by Mr Baker were neither suitable nor sufficient to control risks arising from the operation of these two machines.
• An employee of the company sustained serious injuries when operating a biscuit cutter and the rotating blade made contact with his hand, cutting his thumb to the bone.
• Also, an employee sustained injury to his hand whilst using the cutter of an overhead router and received serious lacerations and crush injuries to his right index finger.
• Both incidents occurred due to the operators adopting unsafe working practices. This was due to a lack of training, inadequate supervision and insufficient and unsuitable risk assessments.

Jan Cavelle Furniture Company was fined £22,000 (inc.costs).

Workplace Training and Consultancy was fined £45,000 (inc.costs).

Health and Safety Consultants was fined £10,000 (inc.costs).

Legal requirement to remove IPPC mark on reused timber

For those of you who like to make bird boxes and the like from broken pallets, did you know that you have to remove the IPPC mark before it's reused?

The mark signifies that the item has undergone treatment (in this case, heat treatment) to kill off organisms that can affect trees. 

Poor economics when ignoring improvement and prohibition notices

We reported in February about William Fry Fabrications Limited being fined £15,860 (inc.costs) for failure to comply with improvement and prohibition notices regarding the lack of inspection of 2 cranes. 
A report in the April addition of IOSH magazine gives some more information and shows what poor economic sense the practice at William Fry Fabrications made.
They claimed that they could not find an engineer to carry out the inspection. However, during the court appearance, the HSE Inspector stated that he easily found 3, ranging in costs from £375 to £650 + VAT.
The £15,860 figure was just the fine and court costs, and the HSE's Fees For Intervention could quite easily have doubled this.
So for the sake of saving a maximum of £650, the company lost £30,000. 
The lesson to be learnt is to not make silly savings when it comes to health and safety. Fortunately in this case, nobody was hurt. 

Strategic Safety Systems Ltd financially sound. Similar name companies not so sound

Don't get Strategic Safety Systems Ltd., mixed up with companies with a similar name but much less financially sound.
According to credit rating agency Experian, we have a credit score of 88 and are classed as Low Risk.
Other companies are:

• Strategic Safety Services, credit score 19, classed as High Risk.
• Strategic Safety Consultants, credit score 14, classed as Maximum Risk.
• Strategic Safeguarding Solutions, credit score 10, classed as Maximum Risk.

We're going to be around for some time. Others may not.

Inadequate guarding results in loss of finger

Swansea company ITW Limited, which manufactures plastic sheeting was fined £26,018 (inc.costs) after an employee suffered serious injury when his hand was caught and dragged into machinery.

The circumstances were:

• There was inadequate guarding along the length of the production line, despite ITW Ltd having identified the risks.
• On 30 May 2012 an employee was part of a maintenance crew repairing a break in the plastic sheeting processed by this line.
• He was rethreading broken plastic sheeting into a pinch roll when his gloved hand was caught and dragged into the rollers. 
• The first finger on his right hand was so badly damaged it was surgically removed below the knuckle.

Incorrect gloves causes entanglement with drill, loss of finger and £28,000 fine

Birmingham-based automotive company Lander Automotives Limited was fined £28,694 (inc. costs) after a worker lost his finger in a drill.

The circumstances were:

• Lander Automotives failed to provide adequate training, a safe system of work, a risk assessment or method statement for drilling.
• On 17 June 2015 an employee was operating the drill whilst wearing gloves.
• A glove became entangled in the drill bit. 
• He suffered partial amputation to the third finger on his right hand.

SSS Note: This is an example of where PPE if worn must be appropriate and not introduce additional risks. Any gloves worn near moving machinery must have low tensile strength so that they rip rather than cause this level of injury.

Advanced Gate fined £25,000 after gate fell off runners

Advanced Gate Limited, who produce and install gate systems was fined £25,000 (inc.costs) after a leaf of a gate fell and struck a man.

The circumstances were:

• Advanced Gate were contracted to manufacture and install a gate system at PHS Limited in Caerphilly.
• The gate consisted of two leaves; one of which was driven by a motor and connected to the second leaf by a chain and sprocket which provided the drive motion for the second leaf.
• The design was inadequate, as were assessment and control measures to ensure the gate was safe for use.
• There was a failure of the gate mechanism.
• On 30 September 2014 an employee of PHS Limited went to manually close the gate. 
• The leaf he was pulling came out of the runners and it collapsed on him.
• A vertical rail struck his leg and resulted in severe trauma to his leg with muscle and nerves torn away. 
• He was hospitalised for ten days and off work for one year.

The HSE inspector:
“Powered gates pose a risk to employees and members of the public. Those responsible for installing, maintaining and operating these gates need to make sure they are safe during installation and use. This accident could have been avoided if the clearly foreseeable risk of the gate falling had been identified and controlled.”