21/11/2017
Several new health and safety prosecutions have occurred recently. Below is a brief roundup of two of the most serious cases.
Slight move in machine’s control desk increased risk
Acenta Steel was fined £400,000 plus £10,695 in costs after a worker’s leg was crushed in the vice of an industrial bandsaw
The employee was manually clearing metal shavings which had blocked a sensor preventing the machine from working. His leg became caught in the machine’s moving vice, crushing it.
Eighteen months prior to the accident, Acenta had moved the bandsaw’s control desk by 90 degrees to allow better access to the computer controlled machine for maintenance.
Environmental health office, Gill Parsons visited Acenta Steel’s Rugby site the day after the accident. She noticed changes had been made that reduced the guarding on the four-year-old machine.
“The guarding was getting in the way when they wanted to lift the steel with a crane so it was removed; more was removed so they could get swarf off the machine; and thirdly, they moved the control desk by 90 degrees to allow access to the machine. That was the critical change”, she told Health and Safety at Work magazine.
It was also ruled the company had not conducted an adequate risk assessment for the change of guard. And although the company claimed they had a comprehensive risk assessment policy, nothing was written down.
When it came to sentencing, the court considered that with a turnover of £56 million, the company was a “large organisation” under the Sentencing Guidelines. The culpability factor was ruled as “high”, and the harm factor was category two (high to medium likelihood).
Comment
This case illustrates the importance of having a risk assessment policy that is written down and regularly updated. If changes to work conditions are changed, the risk assessment needs to take place and any findings documented.
The inspector also found the injured employee had not been trained on the machine or in safe maintenance procedures, and the bandsaw had not been isolated before he started manually removing the fillings.
Training of employees is an imperative part of health and safety management. Again, it is imperative to document training procedures in writing so that they can be used as part of a defence should an investigation for a health and safety breach take place.
JD Sports fined £60,000 for fire risk
Leaving piles of Christmas stock in front of emergency exits, creating a blockage, has led to JD Sports being fined £60,000 and £7,464 in costs.
Firefighters discovered that escape routes at the JD Sports shop in the Merry Hill shopping centre were lined with crates and stock, brought in for the Christmas rush. This reduced the width to just 30cms.
Firefighters ordered staff to clear the route; however, when they followed up the inspection two weeks later, nothing had been done. Wolverhampton Magistrates’ Court heard that problems with escape routes being blocked by packaging and waste had been identified.
JD Sport admitted six offences. The court fined the company £10,000 for each charge.
Mike Norton, a fire inspection officer at West Midlands Fire Service, told Health and Safety at Work magazine:
“It beggars belief that the company compromised the safety of their staff and Christmas shoppers in this way. In spite of our warning that we would be revisiting, breaches were again identified when we returned two weeks later. Retailers must realise they can’t put profit before people’s safety by overstocking, reducing the width of escape routes and blocking fire exits.”
Comment
The courts have little sympathy for companies that do not take fire safety responsibilities seriously. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, states all businesses must have a comprehensive Fire Risk Assessment in place. This must highlight the actions taken by the organisation to comply with Article 14 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 which reads:
Emergency routes and exits
14.- (1) Where necessary, in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons, the responsible person must ensure that routes to emergency exits from premises and the exits themselves are kept clear at all times.
(2) The following requirements must be complied with in respect of premises where necessary (whether due to the features of the premises, the activity carried on there, any hazard present or any other relevant circumstances) in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons—
(a) emergency routes and exits must lead as directly as possible to a place of safety;
(b) in the event of danger, it must be possible for persons to evacuate the premises as quickly and as safely as possible;
(c) the number, distribution and dimensions of emergency routes and exits must be adequate having regard to the use, equipment and dimensions of the premises and the maximum number of persons who may be present there at any one time;
(d) emergency doors must open in the direction of escape;
(e) sliding or revolving doors must not be used for exits specifically intended as emergency exits;
(f) emergency doors must not be so locked or fastened that they cannot be easily and immediately opened by any person who may require to use them in an emergency;
(g) emergency routes and exits must be indicated by signs; and
(h) emergency routes and exits requiring illumination must be provided with emergency lighting of adequate intensity in the case of failure of their normal lighting.
Fines for breaching Article 14 can be severe, and the reputational damage resulting from the adverse publicity can be crippling. Businesses must, therefore, ensure their Fire Risk Assessment is up to date and identifies potential hazards and how they will be dealt with.
Fisher Scoggins Waters is a London based law firm who are experts in construction, manufacturing, and engineering law. If you have any questions about health and safety matters or require an emergency response to an incident, please phone us on 0207 993 6960.