New Year - Resolutions?

We are moving into (yet another) New Year.

Many people make resolutions to change - their lifestyle, attitude, eating habits, etc. Do businesses? Do the people who run businesses?

This year, why not make a resolution to "do safety better". I do not mean to spend unnecessary sums of money or to carry out unnecessary training or risk assessments. I mean "to think about safety and make some simple, low cost changes for the better".

Some simple starters?

Housekeeping standards - about a third of workplace accidents result from slips, trips and falls and about half of these result from poor housekeeping.

Fire Safety - Check exit routes, check emergency lighting, check the fire alarm, do a fire drill, update your fire safety risk assessment, etc

Vehicle movements - review the separation between people and vehicles - people come off really badly when it goes wrong!

Focus - as with all areas that are important to your business, focus your efforts onto those things that will make a big difference for a low cost and for minimal effort. Housekeeping is a nice, easy big hit. It costs little and can reduce the instances of slips, trips and falls and it can reduce the likelihood of a fire.

Records - consider which records are most important to the management of health and safety and make it ease to keep these up to date.

Get involved - walk round the premises and view the operation regularly. Put right those things that do not look right on the walk round or, even better, get those people who should already have addressed these issues to put them right! Truly management by walking about.

Employer without Insurance

A Bradford takeaway owner has been fined for failing to insure his staff against work-related injuries and illnesses. The owner was approached by the HSE on two occasions and asked to provide his employers' liability insurance certificate and failed to do so on both occasions. The owner also fails to turn up for a formal interview and later failed to turn up to court.

He was found guilty of breaching Section 1(1) of the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 and fined £2,500 for failing to insure his employees against injury arising from their work. He faces a further £1,000 penalty for failing to producing an insurance certificate and was also ordered to pay full costs of over £2,500

The HSE inspecton commented:

It's wholly unacceptable for employers not to arrange insurance to cover their employees for incidents or illnesses that can occur because of their work ... Employers who turn a blind eye to this are playing a dangerous game of chance and whenever HSE becomes aware this is happening, we will not hesitate to take enforcement action."

Health, Safety and morality

Health and safety is an area that all companies must maintain, but what is it that obliges us to do so? Reasons could be legal, professional, financial, social or moral to name a few. What are the moral reasons for upholding a high standard of health and safety in the workplace? I shall endeavour to name a few reasons why businesses should be concerned with this aspect of health and safety.
From a Kantian perspective, we all have duties which we ought to act upon. Regarding health and safety we have a duty not to harm others, to prevent unnecessary risks and not to kill. Poor health and safety can result in both minor and major injuries and sometimes even death. We have a duty to protect the wellbeing of others and poor health and safety maintenance ignores this duty; by not upholding a safe work environment, the employer is acting immorally. Thus, because we ought to protect others from unnecessary harm and remain moral, we ought to endorse high standards of health and safety in the workplace.
The Bible teaches ‘love your neighbour as you love yourself’. Although limited by the field of religion, this statement still holds true in a secular environment - we should treat others in a way we would want to be treated. If we take a bad employer who cuts corners and exposes his staff to dangerous conditions, would he want to be treated in this manner? Imagine an employee suffered severe acid burns and was blinded due to poor upkeep of the work environment and subsequently could not work again. This would be the fault of the employer for not accounting for risks and doing his best to provide a safe environment. Would they really want to suffer a similar fate as a result of their negligence? One would assume not, thus in regards to our own self interest as well as the welfare of others around us, good quality health and safety is a must.
Taking on a utilitarian perspective, the ethic is to provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number; once again, our concern here is wellbeing. Poor workplace maintenance could lead to many hazards- trips, spills, electrical, chemical and mechanical. A worker who is constantly under at the mercy of his environment is not a happy worker. Thus, for the greatest happiness of the workers, a safe work environment should be provided. Regarding the employer, poor health and safety standards affect them also. Dangerous conditions could result in severe injury. Imagine an employee was injured at work and an inquiry showed it to be due to the negligence of the manager. Penalties would be enforced, be they fines, sentences or loss of licence. The potential impact is on the employer as well as the employee. Thus, in order to prevent both parties suffering, it would be in the best interests of everyone’s wellbeing to uphold a safe workplace.
To conclude, all three points made point strongly to wellbeing, be it wellbeing of the employer or employees. Health and safety is a moral requirement in any field of work in order to maintain a constant sense of safety and security.

Visit our website

Avoid driving in adverse weather conditions

You would be wella advised not to drive in the current poor weather (snow, ice, etc) unless your journey is necessary. If you do need to drive, I'd advise you to have a look at the direct.gov.uk website:

Fall from height after contact with electricity

After suffering an electric shock at one of the UK's largest timber merchants, a subcontractor fell more than five metres from a crane ladder. The mechanical fitter suffered a several injuries, including a broken vertebra as a result of the incident.

The Cambridge-based building and timber merchants was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after the incident, which happened in September 2008. The fitter was employed by an Engineering Company that had been subcontracted to fix an overhead crane system at the timber engineering workshop in Sudbury, Suffolk. He was climbing a ladder to access the crane when he made contact with a live conductor, which caused him to fall 18ft. He landed on the concrete floor, sustaining a fractured vertebra, a broken ankle, smashed heel, and burns to his hands.

The timber merchants admitted breaching Regulation 4(3) of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 - failing to ensure work was carried out in such a manner as to not give rise to danger. The firm was fined £5,000 (with £4,344.70 costs).

The HSE Inspector said:

It is essential for companies to ensure that work undertaken on their behalf by subcontractors is properly managed and safe systems of work agreed prior to work commencing. ... have admitted that the task was handed over to Mr Minor without discussion as to the way it was to be undertaken or any precautions that may be needed prior to it being started.

Fall from height - Roofing Contractor

A roofing contractor from East London suffered a broken back after falling through the skylight of a building extension. Investigation by the HSE revealed that safety procedures had been overlooked. The worker fell while removing tarpaulin from the one-storey roof extension at a flat in South West London back in December 2006. The tarpaulin had been put in place to provide the ground floor of the flat with weather protection. The worker was removing this when the tarpaulin snagged. The man stepped on some insulating board that had been laid across the skylight, which gave way under his weight. He fell over three metres to the concrete floor below.

The injured persons employer pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6 (3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and was fined £10,000, with costs of £7,000.

The injured worker suffered a broken back as a result of the fall and can now only walk short distances and needs to use a walking stick. The injured worker's condition will not improve and he will not be able to return to work in the construction industry.

Speaking after the sentence, the injured man showed, again, how such injuries destroys lives:

Prior to the incident, I had an active life and enjoyed numerous outdoor activities, which I can no longer pursue. I no longer work as a result of my injuries. The incident has effectively turned my life upside down. I suffer terrible flashbacks and am currently on medication.

The HSE Inspector commented:

The impact on this man's life has been immeasurable. This incident could easily have been avoided, and illustrates there is no room for complacency even when working on small sites. Work at height is the single largest safety hazard on construction sites and needs to be properly managed.

Fall from height fatality costs BT nearly half a million Pounds

British Telecommunications Plc (BT) has been fined £300,000 following the death of a worker who fell from height. The 52 year old power construction engineer fell from a ladder while carrying out installation works and suffered fatal head injuries. the incident occurred at London's Canonbury Telephone Exchange on 27 October 2006.

BT was prosecuted after an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The Crown Court heard that the worker was installing distribution boards and running cabling as part of his work and that he would have been working at a height of more than four metres. He fell from a nine-step wooden ladder, sustaining a serious head injury and he died 18 days later.

The HSE investigation found a number of issues including a failure to ensure the work at height was properly planned. they also found that the worker was provided with suitable access equipment for work at height. Two wooden ladders found at the scene had not been subject to an annual inspection, contrary to BT's own health and safety policy. BT were found guilty of breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 at a previous hearing. Today, they were fined £300,000 and were ordered to pay costs of £196,150

The HSE inspector, said:

The fact that this incident was entirely avoidable makes Mr Askew's death all the more tragic.

The dangers posed by work at height are well known, yet BT failed to create the conditions to ensure this task was carried out safely and the appropriate access equipment was used.

Employers have a responsibility to ensure that work at height is properly planned and organised.

Showing the human suffering side of workplace safety, the wife of the worker killed in this incident said:

I spent over 30 happy, irreplaceable years with my husband. He was a remarkable father and husband. What do I have to look forward to now? My husband was my past and I thought he was my future.

I feel sad my husband will never see two of his children get married. Most of all I feel sad that I see such sadness in my children's eyes when they talk of their father.

I feel sad that my husband worked all his life and never got the chance to retire and enjoy the life he was working so hard towards.

I share a massive disappointment that this happened within a workforce of such a large company and where the safety of every employee should have been assured.

Note:

Sadly, falls from height remain the most common cause of workplace fatality. In the accident statistics for the period of 2008 - 2009 there were 35 fatalities, 4654 major injuries and a further 7065 injuries that caused the injured person to be off work for over three days or more, due to a fall from height.

BT to Appeal - it is understood that BT are to appeal against the fine in this case. More on this later.

A Safety Consultant's day in London

Cold, early start - off to London on the 05.53 hrs train from Loughborough.
Quick stop off for breakfast at a small cafe near to Paddington Station before meeting a great client with a series of Hotel and Residential properties. A general run through some issues that they are having on one site and then off to visit a series of their more local Residential Property units. A few issues were identified on these sites and some improvements suggested (to ease the burden of record keeping). After that, it was over to Holborn to carry out a Safety Compliance Audit for the Managing Agent at a multi-let office block. Only issue on this site was to improve the control of contractors (which was largely being done well). Then back on the underground and onto the train. Train far too warm - dozed for most of the return journey.

Day over, except for some report writing ...

Another day in London a couple of weeks later
Another cold and early start, but at least the snow and ice was no longer a problem. One thought in my mind - will the student demonstrations of the previous evening create any lingering travel delays.

I met my first client of the day for a quick review of the general safety, welfare and fire safety arrangements of their small office area in a much larger building near to Victoria Station. After that, over to a smart office block near to King's Cross Station to take part in a job interview - working with a client to assist them in several interesting and challenging areas of change in their company. On at a relentless gallop over to Holborn to carry out a safety inspection of the common areas of a multi-let office block before heading home at the end on a gruelling, but interesting, day. Again, the reports need to be written up ...

Immediate Future
Several more early starts and late finishes commuting to London to continue my health and safety consultancy work. Hard work, yes - but also fascinating and fun!

Ten years in business

How time flows over us! I have now been running my own Company for ten years. Over this period, my business has developed and grown. I now work with a wider range of clients than ever before, delivering more services than ever before. Over that time, I have seen changes in health and safety legislation and changes in the way it is perceived and used. Like many consultants I too often find that health and safety is used by some employers as a reason for not doing things. However, I am able to help many of my clients improve their workplace and their productivity while improving aspects of safety. Some clients now even use health and safety as a way to market themselves and to differentiate themselves from others in similiar fields (developing a USP, in marketing speak).

To celebrate the achievement of ten years running my own business, I have added an incentive to new clients - this can be viewed on the website.

The next few years will see the Company develop further, with a greater emphasis on the food safety and on the fire safety aspects of the business.

Some simple information on asbestos

What is asbestos?
Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous material and has been used for about 150 years on a large scale. It is versatile, plentiful and ideal as a fire-proofing and insulation material. But it can be deadly!


The three main types of asbestos that have been used commercially are:
-Crocidolite (blue)
-Amosite (brown)
-Chrysotile (white)

Basic facts:
1000 people who worked in these trades die from cancer every year as a result of breathing asbestos fibres.
There’s still a lot of old asbestos in buildings
Any building built or refurbished before 2000 is still likely to contain asbestos.
Asbestos is responsible for an estimated 4000 deaths a year

Why is it dangerous?
If you inhale asbestos fibres (which are long and thin) they can become lodged in the tissue of your chest and your body’s natural defences may not be able to easily break them down. This can lead to lung diseases (mainly cancers), particularly if you are repeatedly exposed to fibres over a number of years.

Effects on health:

- Exposure to asbestos can cause three main diseases:
- Asbestosis: irreversible scarring of the lungs;
- Lung cancer: increased incidence, particularly if you smoke;
- Mesothelioma: cancer of the lining of the lungs or stomach.
Note: These diseases have no cure – mesothelioma and lung cancer are fatal diseases.
Typically, there can be a 15–60 years gap between first exposure and diagnosis.

Who’s at risk?

- Electricians
- Plumbers
- Date cabling operatives
- Joiners
- Heating & ventilation engineers
- Construction workers
- Other similar occupations

Where is it found?

- Asbestos cement products
- Textured pain coatings
- Floors tiles, textiles and composites
- Sprayed coatings on ceilings, walls and beams
- Asbestos insulation boards
- Lagging
- Fire blankets
- Window sills
- Panelling
- Loose asbestos in ceiling/floor cavity

What to do if you discover asbestos at work:

- Stop work
- Inform supervisor/contract manager
- Inform client
- Do not restart until told to do so by contracts manager or supervisor

If you think you may be working with asbestos:

- Liaise with the client
- Request a copy of a recent asbestos survey
- Check the asbestos survey against the work that you will be doing
- Constant vigilance

What to do if you need to work with it:

- Use hand tools - not power tools: they create too much dust
- Keep materials damp - not too wet
- Wear a properly fitted, suitable mask (eg. disposable FFP3 type). An ordinary dust mask will not be effective
- Don't smoke, eat or drink in the work area
- Double-bag asbestos waste and label the bags clearly and correctly
- Clean up as you go - use a special (Class H) vacuum cleaner, don’t sweep up asbestos.
- After work, wipe down your overalls with a damp rag or wear disposable overalls
- Always remove overalls before removing your mask
- Don't take overalls home to wash
- Wear boots without laces or use disposable boot covers
- Put disposable clothing items in asbestos waste bags and dispose of them properly- don’t reuse disposable clothing.

- Don't carry asbestos into your car or home – even accidentally!

Need Help? Need Asbestos Awareness Training? Website

Buncefield fines -

Five companies have been told to pay more than £9m for their parts in the Buncefield oil depot fire which occurred in December 2005. It is reported that the explosion was equivalent to a 2.4-magnitude earthquake and it caused Europe's biggest fire since World War Two.

Sentencing the firms at St Albans Crown Court, Judge Sir David Calvert-Smith said:

"Had the explosion happened during a working day, the loss of life may have been measured in tens or even hundreds."

The companies were fined a total of £5.35m and ordered to pay costs of £4.08m.

Total was fined £3.6m plus £2.6m in costs, Hertfordshire Oil Storage was fined £1.45m plus £1m costs, British Pipeline Agency will pay £300,000 plus £480,000 in costs, Motherwell Control Systems 2003 Ltd (now in administration) and TAV Engineering were both fined £1,000 and each ordered to pay £500 in costs.

Scores on the foods - Food Hygiene

The launch of the new Scores on the Doors website has sharpened the focus on restaurant hygiene. The scores are based on audits conducted by Environmental Health Officers on visits to premises.

For those with a strong health and hygiene record, the chance to have their scores displayed on a website is a great opportunity to obtain more customers and communicate high standards. Conversely, those with low scores are facing increasing media scrutiny: with a string of articles using Scores on the Doors to condemn and vilify restaurants for their poor hygiene.

The control of pests, such as mice, rats, flies and cockroaches, is a crucial aspect of a restaurant’s overall hygiene and one that all restaurant owners should be aware of. There is no reason for restaurants to fear the negative consequences if they are aware of the signs to look for and take simple preventative measures to reduce the level of risk.
Here are a few handy hints that are useful to remember:

• dark spots on ceilings can be identified as fly faeces
• dark smear marks on the floors, doors and skirting boards will appear from mice and rodents’ fur
• droppings and smears can appear in areas that are not regularly cleaned, such as the window display of a restaurant
• fly traps with large amounts of dead flies probably don’t work any more and will need servicing

But perhaps the most important method of preventing infestation is to ensure that your premises is clean and tidy. Not only will this help to improve your overall score, but a clean and tidy premises is one that pests don’t tend to infest.

• Food should also be stored correctly on shelving, and in refrigerators and freezer units.
• Crates and boxes should be stacked 70cm away from the wall to prevent rodents getting easy access.
• Kitchen, and front-of-house staff need to be educated on the signs and risks of infestation and should be expected to act responsibly when cleaning the premises and handling food.
• Restaurants should arrange preventative inspections, rather than hiring them reactively.

As more councils sign up to the scheme, scores are becoming more important in attracting business and retaining existing business and, hopefully, raise the general standards of the industry.

Need help? Contact us through our website

Fall from height - large fines

Two Gloucestershire companies have been fined after a roofing contractor fell through a skylight and suffered serious head injuries.

The two companies were prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive after a contractor fell through a fragile roof skylight while working on the roof of a sawmill building at Mile End, Coleford, Gloucestershire. The contractor fell five metres and landed on the concrete floor below, sustaining serious head injuries.

At a hearing before Gloucester Magistrates, the Sawmill company pleaded guilty to four breaches of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 and 2007 and was fined a total of £13,320 and ordered to pay costs of £14,443.

The owner of the contracting company pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined a total of £26,660 and ordered to pay costs of £14,443.


Speaking after the hearing, An HSE inspector said:

"This incident highlights the extremely serious risks posed by working at heigh if adequate safety protection measures are not in place ... The investigation revealed significant failures in the safe systems of work for the removal of the roof sheets and also significant failure to control risks of working at height during all of the stages of the sawmill refurbishment. RS was supervising two other employees who were also at risk, one of whom was only 17 at the time of this incident ... The sawmill remained open during all of the works and employees working below were also at risk from persons or objects falling on them. (The) fall could easily have proved fatal."

Contact us through the website

High street retailer loses appeal against a record £400,000 fine for Fire Safety breaches

A major high street retailers appeal against its record £400,000 fine for fire safety breaches at its Oxford Street store was dismissed last week (Thursday 17th), with the Court of Appeal saying the fine was not excessive in view of the company’s “lamentable” performance of fire safety duties.

In a significant judgement for responsible persons under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the court decided that the level of the fine was not excessive in relation to the seriousness of the offences, the size and nature of the company, and the risk to the public which the company ran. The court also held that the fine was not out of kilter with those for offences under general health and safety legislation where there was a risk of death or serious injury.

The conviction of the company last November followed a fire at its Oxford Street store on 26 April 2009, which resulted in a chaotic evacuation of some 400 people, the closure part of Oxford Street for two days, and the eventual demolition of the building. The company was subsequently prosecuted and pleaded guilty to two main counts under the Fire Safety Order – failing to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment, and failing to ensure that employees were given adequate fire safety training. Other alleged detailed breaches were taken into account under these two counts.

The Court of Appeal concluded that while it accepted that the fire itself was not caused by the retailer’s breaches of duty, (the cause of the fire has never been established) the offences were serious enough to create a magnitude of risk in which death and serious injury in the fire was avoided by luck.

The appeal judges also agreed with the trial judge that a starting point for a fine in these circumstances was £600,000. This was rightly reduced to £400,000 in view of nobody being killed or injured, the company pleading guilty and co-operating with the investigation at the earliest opportunity, and the company demonstrating that it had taken significant steps to remedy fire safety shortcomings across its stores.

While maintaining that the principles of setting the level of fines under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 were similar to those for the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the court said the trial judge was right to recognise “that the nature of the risk that employees and others were to be protected was the risk from death or serious injury in a fire. Fire can be indiscriminate in its effect and, in the case of an organisation which in the centre of a large city undertakes responsibility for large numbers of visitors to its premises, breaches will usually be a very serious matter.”

The Court of Appeal concluded: “We share the judge’s view that the appellant’s performance of its fire safety duties in a large department store in the centre of London was lamentable. The fines were, we recognise, severe, but they were not on our judgement manifestly excessive and the appeal is dismissed.”

In a statement issued after the judgement, the retailer said:

"We are committed to putting the health and safety of customers and employees first. Although the appeal against the fine was unsuccessful, we note that the original 35 alleged breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRFSO) were reduced to 2 offences and at no time has it been alleged that the company was either responsible for the fire, or that its breaches of the RRFSO caused the fire."

Screen Wash or Legionella?

The Health Protection Agency (HPA) have suggested that motorists who do not use screenwash for their windscreen wipers risk getting potentially deadly legionnaires' disease!

The warning comes after health experts apparently discovered that professional drivers are five times more likely to be infected with the dangerous legionella bug. The suggestion is that legionella will thrive in the warm, stagnant environment of the windscreen washer bottle if screenwash is not added to discourage its proliferation. According to the survey, legionella bacterium were found in one in five cars that did not have the additive, but in no cars that did. Legionella infection is contracted when small droplets of contaminated water are breathed in (hence it's long term association with cooling towers, etc). It is not spread person to person.

It is feared that around a fifth of legionnaires' disease cases may arise from this perculiar type of exposure. The findings come from a Health Protection Agency-led study, which looked at why people at the wheel were more likely to be infected. Most at risk were found to be those driving a van, people who drive through industrial areas, and people who often had the car window open.

The study's authors said:

"Not adding screenwash to windscreen wiper fluid is a previously unidentified risk factor and appears to be strongly associated with community acquired sporadic cases of legionnaires' disease."

Do you want my view?

In case you did, it is

"It costs little to avoid this potential source of trouble to your health and possibly to your business. Add screenwash to your windscreen wash bottle and forget about reading this article. Life is too short for such worries"!

Restaurant fined £19,610 after salmonella outbreak

A Chinese restaurant has been fined £10,000 after six diners were hospitalised with salmonella food poisoning. A total of 46 people all suffered from food poisoning after eating at the restaurant, with ages of the victims ranging from an 80-year-old man to a 22-month-old baby.

Investigating Environmental Health Officers from the local council discovered the source of the outbreak was the use of raw eggs in tiramisu. They found the kitchen was dirty and the structure in poor repair. A sample taken from the fridge where tiramisu was stored confirmed the presence of salmonella bacteria. Officers also found several food items that had been prepared at least five days before, including tiramisu that had been prepared six days earlier.

They closed the restaurant after the inspection in August 2008. Before it reopened it was deep cleaned and food hygiene practices were also changed. The restaurant stopped using raw eggs as an ingredient of tiramisu.

The restaurant’s trading company, as well as the company director, admitted four charges under food safety and hygiene regulations at Wolverhampton magistrates court in February.

At Wolverhampton crown court in March, the company, which has since ceased trading, received a £10,000 fine and was ordered to pay £9,610 costs. The director was ordered to do 100 hours unpaid community service.

The court was told seven people affected by the outbreak had so far received compensation totalling £45,000 and 10 claims were outstanding.

Poor food safety standards lead to a £6000 fine for Takeaway owner

A takeaway owner in Staffordshire has been fined £3,500 after failing to put in place adequate procedures to control pests and for poor cleaning and for failing to protect food from contamination.

The owner of the take away admitted seven food hygiene offences at Burton magistrates’ court after East Staffordshire Borough Council brought a prosecution.

When Environmental Health Officers (EHO) visited the premises in February 2008 on a routine hygiene inspection they discovered food debris in the freezer and nesting material and droppings in the motor compartment. They also found filthy and contaminated equipment. In the walk-in fridge, they found burgers being stored on a dirty floor and droppings around the sink area, including the draining board.

The officers served three hygiene improvement notices and the owner voluntarily closed the premises, which posed an imminent risk to human health.

During regular revisits between February and July 2008, the EHOs discovered mouse droppings and further evidence of an infestation. Equipment, including the till, sieves and the wire rack in the hot hold cabinet, were also filthy. The kitchen had a putrid smell and officers found three dead mice in the freezer motor compartment and four dead mice in a disused warming cabinet. The owner voluntarily closed the premises again to deal with the infestation.

The presiding magistrate said he had never seen such bad conditions during his time as a magistrate. The owner was fined £500 for each offence. He was also ordered to pay £2,500 costs and a £15 victim surcharge. The magistrate said the fine would have been considerably more had the owner not been unemployed.

Holiday Fire Safety - some simple steps

Fire safety doesn't take a holiday, even if you do, so why not take a few simple steps to help to keep you and your family safe!

Hotel safety

If possible, check that your holiday accommodation is equipped with smoke detectors and sprinkler systems when you book. If it doesn't, you might want to think about taking your own portable smoke detector.

When you arrive, look for a primary and alternate escape route from your room. If a fire occurs at night, it will be easier to get out if you know where you're going.

If the worst happens and a fire breaks out:

- Close the door of the room where the fire is, if you can do so safely, and close all the doors behind you as you leave. This will help to delay the spread of fire and smoke.
- Get everyone out of the building and stay out.
- Dial the fire service from a neighbouring phone, a call box or mobile phone.
- Be careful on the way out. Before opening a closed door, touch it with the back of your hand. If it feels warm, don't open it - there could be fire on the other side.

If you're cut off by fire:

- Try to remain calm. Close all doors and block any gaps with towels or sheets to stop smoke spreading into the room.
- Get close to the floor. Smoke rises, so the lower you are the easier it will be to breathe.
- Try to make your way to a window where you can attract someone's attention and get them to alert the fire service.
- If your clothing catches fire, stop what you're doing, drop to the floor and roll over to smother the flames.

Camping safety

When camping you can sometimes be lulled into a false sense of security, you’re outdoors, and the risks should be minimal, but you can still reduce the risk further by following these handy tips:

- before you set off, get the contact details of the local Fire and Rescue Service
- set up tents at least six metres apart and away from parked cars
- make sure you know what the fire safety arrangements are on the camp site and where the nearest telephone is
- don’t use oil-burning appliances, like lanterns, or candles in or near a tent – torches are safer
- don’t smoke inside a tent
- place your cooking area well away from the tent
- keep your cooking area clear of items that catch fire easily, including long, dry grass
- put cooking appliances in a place where they can’t easily be knocked over
- keep matches, lighters, flammable liquids and gas cylinders out of the reach of children
- have an escape plan and be prepared to cut your way out of your tent if there is a fire

How to deal with a fire when camping - remember these two simple tips:

- get everyone out straight away – fires in tents spread very quickly
- ll the Fire and Rescue Service and give a map reference if possible – provide a landmark, like a farm or pub, to help them find you

Working at height and failure to control contractors

Case 1
Failure to control the work (at height) of contractors led to a large waste management company being fined £100,000 (with costs of £22,000) for breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, Etc Act 1974 (HSWA) by failing to ensure the safety of those not in its employment. The contractor was also fined £70,000 (with costs of £22,000) after pleading guilty to contravening Section 2(1) HSWA by not ensuring its employees’ safety. The accident followed an attempt to remove the gearbox that was attached to a large fan (9 ½ metres diameter) set at a height of ten metres. The removal of the gearbox was proving problematic and appropriate hydraulic equipment should have been brought in. However, four workers stood on the fan blades and rocked them up and down. When the fan released itself, a worker overbalanced and fell ten metres, through a mesh that could not hold his weight, to a pallet below. The worker sustained serious injuries, including broken ribs, a punctured lung and a hernia. The worker fell onto a pallet of copper pipes, which absorbed much of the impact. It is likely that he would have died if he had landed on the floor.

Case 2
An electrical installations company has been fined £160,000 (with costs of about £25,000) after a workman fell to his death while dismantling a mobile tower scaffold. The worker erected the mobile tower scaffold with edge protection on the top platform, but not around the intermediate levels. While dismantling the tower (from top to bottom) the worker was attempting to remove one of the intermediate platforms when he stumbled and fell from the scaffolding and landed on the ground, five metres below. The Company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 for failing to ensure work at height was properly supervised and carried out safely.

Case 3
A worker fractured his leg and ankle after falling 4 metres from a wooden pallet that was being used as a temporary work platform that was raised by a forklift truck. Although the workers were acting on their own initiative, the problem (with a roller shutter door sticking) was one that was well known to management within the Company. The investigating HSE inspector commented that the men should have used an alternative to the pallet raised by the forklift, such as: a ladder, a mobile scaffold, a cherry picker or mobile-elevated work platform. The Company pleaded guilty to a breach of Section 2(1) of the HSWA by failing to ensure its employees’ safety. It was fined £10,000 (with costs of £5884).

Case 4
In a very recent case, a Leicester based company was fined £10,000 (with costs of £4,778) following prosecution when contracted roofers were spotted working unsafely at their premises. Safe access was provided on one of the premises, but there was not fall protection on the other side. An HSE Inspection commented “This case shows that it is not only the responsibility of the contracting company to ensure the safety of its workforce, but also it is the client’s”.

Hazardous substances or COSHH Cases

Case 1
In January this year, a bearings company was fined £20,000 (with costs of £15,000) following prosecution for exposing the workforce to hazardous substances in the form of metalworking fluids as a mist. The company was issued with an Improvement Notice, following an HSE visit in April 2007, to provide its workforce with adequate face protection, and to install adequate control measures on six machines, to prevent employees coming into direct contact with the mist. Inspectors returned in December 2007 and undertook a full safety audit across the whole site. Although the company complied with the Improvement Notice (and installed extractors on each machine) a subsequent inspection identified that the problem was more widespread and 100 other machines were also emitting metalworking fluid. Over the last five years there have been 15 reported cases of respiratory ill health (occupational asthma and extrinsic allergic alveolitis) from workers at the factory. This represents the second largest exposure of its kind in the UK at a single company.

Case 2
The UK's largest domestic manufacturer of energy and telecommunications cables and systems to service home and export markets was fined £27,500 and ordered to pay £10,700 costs, at Southampton Crown Court in September 2009. A factory worker was left with permanent disabilities and has been forced to retire on medical grounds at the age of 48 after contracting a severe form of dermatitis at his workplace. The company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 6(1)(a), 7(1), and 7(3) of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002. The site produced high-voltage cables, which contained paper insulation that was soaked in dodecylbenzene oil. As part of the quality testing, the worker cut sections out of the cables and the oil regularly came into contact with his skin. The worker was not provided with suitable personal protective equipment and suffered skin irritations across large parts of his body. As a result of the illness he has been left with permanent scarring and has to avoid contact with a large number of substances that cause further skin irritation.

Confined spaces - A couple of cases

Case 1
A silo cleaning company was fined £15,000 each of two breaches of the Confined Spaces Regulations 1997 (with costs of £15,000) after pleading guilty to breaching Regulations 4(2) (failing to provide a safe system of work) and 5(1) (insufficient emergency arrangements). A worker who had not been trained in confined-space access and egress, nor provided with adequate equipment, died of heat exhaustion inside a feed silo.

Case 2
A metal-treatment company has been fined £533,000 (with costs of £200,000) following a double fatality at its manufacturing plant. The Crown Court heard that a works manager and a maintenance manager died of asphyxiation and were found unconscious on stairs leading to a concrete-lined pit after argon gas had leaked from a large pressure vessel. Following a number of false alarms, the pit’s oxygen alarm system had been silenced. This was coupled to the fact that the ventilation system was also not in operation after the machine had lost power during a power cut. The power cut happened a month prior to the incident and had not been switched back on. The HSE inspector commented “... the risks from confined spaces and asphyxiation due to the presence of argon were well-known to the company, which had experienced of a similar double fatality. Despite this warning the company failed to undertake a proper risk assessment for entry into the confined space. Although they had implemented a safe system of work and permit-to-work procedure, they had not properly trained employees in their use, or ensured that these systems and procedures were being followed through their auditing procedure.”

If you need help to manage your Health and Safety, please contact us via our website

Contractor fined £45,000 after lift engineer is crushed to death

A Kent-based lift company has been fined following health and safety failings which led to a self-employed lift engineer being crushed to death. The company was prosecuted following an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an employee died while completing the installation of a new lift at a site near Oxford Street in Central London.

On 6 December 2005, the installer was working alone on the lift's wiring while standing on the roof of the lift car at an office building in London.

The cable of a control used to move the lift was severed when it became wrapped around a bolt protruding from the lift shaft wall. This led to a rogue command being sent to the lift's controller causing the lift to start moving upwards.

The installer became trapped between the top of the lift car and the top of the doorway as it travelled upwards, suffering fatal crush injuries.

Neither installer, nor his assistant, had experience of installing the type of lift control system being fitted at the site.

The Old Bailey heard the main contractor carrying out the work was had sub-contracted the work to a specialist lift engineer it had worked with previously. However, due to delays the sub-contractor had to leave the job uncompleted.

The job was then sub-contracted the completion and testing of the lift to a second sub-contractor who employed the installer to undertake the final phases of work.

The company pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined a total of £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £25,000. The company has now stopped trading and has limited financial resources.

A HSE Inspector commented upon the case:

"This tragic event illustrates the critical importance of having sufficient protective features within a control system.

Just one fault sent this lift out of control. Completed lifts have many protective features and this principle cannot be ignored when lifts are being constructed. That is why the permanent car top controls should be used whenever possible, rather than temporary ones."

Company fined £210,000 after driver killed at landfill site

The death of a driver at a landfill site in Northamptonshire led to a waste management and recycling company being prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive and being fined £210,000.

The Driver arrived at the site to empty his refuse lorry and had to be assisted onto and off the tipping area as wet weather had led to soft ground conditions at the site. A bulldozer towed the refuse lorry to the tipping area where he discharged part of his load, in order to shed the rest of the load, the lorry needed to move forward but had become bogged sown in the soft ground. The Driver was radioed by the driver of the compactor who was spreading rubbish behind his lorry, to say he would drive up behind the Driver’s lorry and push it forward using the compactor. The bulldozer in front of the Driver reversed up to the front of the lorry to give him a tow.

Both vehicles tried to help the lorry move, without communicating with each other.

As the compactor began to push the lorry forward, the Driver was attaching a tow rope from the bulldozer to the front of his lorry. He was crushed to death between his lorry and the back of the bulldozer.

Northampton Crown Court heard that the landfill company had not defined supervisory roles for the staff at the site and that there were ambiguous site rules concerning the pushing of lorries. It also heard how new working arrangements had been introduced at the site a few days before the incident without being properly assessed for risk.

The company was fined £210,000 and ordered to pay costs of £38,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

A HSE Inspector said:

"Every company has a legal responsibility to take care of people working on their site, whether they are employed by them or not, in whatever circumstances they are asked to operate. Assessing risks, mitigating them wherever possible or stopping work as appropriate is the least people should expect from companies. Employers need to ensure their staff understand their roles and responsibilities in making sure sites like this operate to clear site safety rules."

"In this case, the prosecution shows that this has not happened and the Driver’s family have lost him as a result."

This sort of accident could have been avoided through conducting an appropriate risk assessment. Find out more about risk assessments and how we can help you by telephoning us on 01509 550023.

Website

Important food safety tips for barbecues

With summer and a (potentially) hot and sunny Bank Holiday Weekend coming up soon, here are some essential food safety tips for barbecues:


- always make sure that the meat (especially: chicken, pork, burgers, sausages and kebabs, etc) is fully cooked. This means cooked until steaming hot all the way through so that none of the meat is pink and any juices run clear


- do not start to cook too early, but wait until the charcoal is glowing red, with a powdery grey surface. If you don't you risk over-charring the outside of the meat while the inside is still raw


- if barbecuing lots of meat, consider cooking it in the oven first and then finished off (without delay) on the barbecue for added flavour


- wash your hands regularly and always after handling raw meat


- when reheating food on the barbecue, always make sure it's steaming hot all the way through before serving


- don't add sauce or marinade to cooked food if it has already been used with raw meat


Need any help with food safety? Visit our new-look website

Store owner fined after failing to put safety of public first

A store owner was fined about £12,500 after being held responsible for an accident in which a three-year-old girl suffered second degree burns. The child’s dress caught fire as she walked past a propane space heater in the store. It was only the bravery of the child's father (who was also treated in hospital for burns to his hands as he tried to put out the flames) that prevented his daughter from suffering even more serious injuries.

Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service Fire Safety Enforcement Officers and Environmental Health Officers from West Lancashire Borough Council launched a joint prosecution against the fabric store. The business owner was found to be in breach of Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 .

Fire service investigators who visited the business in the aftermath of the incident were said to be “appalled” by the lack of fire safety in this commercial site and the fire service concluded that the owner:

"failed to put the safety of the public first"

The store owner failed to initiate basic risk assessments, failed to fit fire or smoke detectors and alarms, failed to provide escape routes with suitable lighting and failed to ensure fire escapes could be used safely and quickly.

A spokesman for the Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service Fire said:

"Under fire safety regulations every ‘responsible person’ is required to carry out a Fire Risk Assessment. This may be done as part of the general Health and Safety Risk Assessment, or as a separate and specific Fire Risk Assessment.

Regrettably in this instance the responsible person had failed to undertake a Fire Risk Assessment which would have identified the unsuitable use of the space heater along with the lack of general fire precaution, and steps required to ensure public safety."

The store owner was also found guilty of offences under the Health and Safety at Work Act brought by West Lancashire Council.

Food Safety - Scores on the Doors

Consumers in most areas can see how well a food business complies with food hygiene regulations through ‘Scores on the Doors’ schemes run by their local authority.

The primary purpose of these ‘Scores on the Doors’ schemes is to allow consumers to make informed choices about the places in which they eat out and from which they purchase food, and, through this, to encourage businesses to improve hygiene standards. Journalists also make use of the ‘Scores on the Doors’ system to publicise the standards of food businesses.

Local authority enforcement officers are responsible for inspecting food businesses to ensure that they meet the legal requirements on food hygiene. Under ‘Scores on the Doors’ schemes, each food outlet is given a hygiene rating or hygiene score that reflects the inspection findings and may display this in their premises where consumers can see it. Scores are also available via websites where consumers can see the scores for all the businesses in the local area.

At the moment, more than 200 local authorities across the UK have Scores on the Doors schemes in place. These schemes vary in their design and the way that they are operated. Some authorities use a star grading system, usually three or five star ranges, others use smiley face symbols. The Food Standards Agency is hoping to standardise the system nationwide to make it easier to understand.

Freedom of information legislation means that inspection reports on food hygiene are in the public domain and any member of the public can ask to see them. ‘Scores on the Doors’ makes food safety conditions at individual premises even more obvious and accessible to the public and the media

To maximise the potential ‘Scores on the Doors’ score it is obviously important to demonstrate good cleaning and food safety practices during the inspection. Just as important as this, however, is to be able to prove that management and staff have received adequate training in food hygiene and that there is a sufficient written food safety management system in place. The weighting given to training and management systems in the scoring of ‘Scores on the Doors’ is high. This often means that where these are lacking, a low score is given even when the physical conditions and practices on site during the inspection are good.

Creating a food safety management system does not have to be complicated. The Food Standards Agency has provided a very easy to use system called ‘Safer Food, Better Business’, which can either be found on the internet or can be provided in paper form from your local authority Environmental Health Department. The hazard analysis part of the system is in a really easy to use ‘fill in the gaps’ format and the record keeping diary is also very simple. There is no requirement for endless records and emphasis is put on only recording things that go wrong and what corrective action is taken.

Training is also easy to do. The ‘Safer Food Better Business System’ itself can be used to aid in house training and excellent food safety courses are available from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and other organisations. These are often available through local colleges, local authorities and many private training centres.

Need Help? Contact us at our website

Former pub landlord fined £16,000 for fire safety breaches

A former pub landlord has been ordered to pay a total of £16,015 in fines and costs for serious breaches of fire safety law following a prosecution brought by London Fire Brigade. The former landlord pleaded guilty to 16 contraventions of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order.

Isleworth Crown Court heard that fire officers inspecting the public house in August 2008 uncovered a number of failings, including no fire risk assessment, no portable fire extinguishers, and no emergency signage.

After explaining their concerns and asking for the faults to be rectified, fire officers revisited the premises and issued an enforcement notice when they found continuing non-compliance.

When officers again visited the premises, conditions had deteriorated and the brigade served a prohibition notice banning the use of the upper floors by staff and guests because the risk from fire was so serious. However, a subsequent visit confirmed that the upper floors were still being used as accommodation.

Following a further inspection in May 2009, the owner of the premises took action at the recommendation of fire officers and physically barred access to the upper floor.

As pub landlord during the period, the former landlord was the responsible person under the Fire Safety Order, and was fined accordingly.

Shocking! - Manufacturer fined £10,330

A stationery manufacturer has been fined after admitting exposing a worker to a high voltage shock that left him permanently disabled. The man was investigating a fault on a plastic welding machine in June 2007 when his fingers came into contact (or very close contact) with components carrying several thousand volts.

The shock severely burned his right hand and forearm, and damaged several muscles. He was hospitalised for 14 days and has since had to undergo skin grafts. He has not regained full use of his right hand and has been unable to return to work.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation into the incident revealed that guard panels which should have prevented access to live circuits had been removed. Inspectors discovered that no record of maintenance checks was kept for any of the machines at the factory. The company also had no first aiders.

The company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 at the City of London Magistrates' Court. It was fined £4,000 and ordered to pay costs of £6,330.

A HSE Inspector said:

"A man's life has been turned upside down because of entirely preventable and basic safety failings. It is the responsibility of all managers to make sure that all maintenance work is properly planned and recorded and that adequate guards are fitted to all machinery when it is in use.

"If these simple things had been done it is unlikely that he would have suffered these horrendous injuries. But this incident could have been much worse - instead of losing the feeling in his fingers, he could have lost his life."

Worker loses 2 fingers - plastic recycling firm

A plastics recycling factory in St Helens was fined £15,000 after a worker had parts of two fingers cut off by blades on a high-speed fan. The employee suffered serious injuries to four fingers on his left hand including the partial amputation of two.

He was injured while trying to repair a drying unit at the firm in May 2009. The Court heard that the employee's fingers came into contact with the high-speed fan while he was trying to fix a problem. The HSE investigation concluded that the company's procedure for repairing the machine was inadequate.

The HSE inspector said:

"One of the factory's employees suffered serious injuries because basic health and safety procedures were not followed. He has still not returned to work more than a year on from the incident.

"By law, the preferred solution would have been for the workers to switch off and lock off the power supply to the fan with padlocks. If this was not possible, then temporary guards should have been put in place. These or other equally effective measures were not taken.

"Sadly incidents like this are all too common. Factories must treat the safety of their workers as a top priority to prevent serious injuries or even deaths in the future."

The Company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was ordered to pay £4,347 towards the cost of the prosecution in addition to the fine at St Helens Magistrates' Court on 25 May.

Need help? Contact us through our website

A store owner is fined £12,567 after being held responsible for an accident in which a three-year-old girl suffered second degree burns. The child’s dress caught fire as she walked past a propane space heater in the store. It was only the bravery of the child's father (who was also treated in hospital for burns to his hands as he tried to put out the flames) that prevented his daughter from suffering even more serious injuries.

Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service Fire Safety Enforcement Officers and Environmental Health Officers from West Lancashire Borough Council launched a joint prosecution against the fabric store. The business owner was found to be in breach of Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 .

Fire service investigators who visited the business in the aftermath of the incident were said to be “appalled” by the lack of fire safety in this commercial site and the fire service concluded that the owner:

"failed to put the safety of the public first"

The store owner failed to initiate basic risk assessments, failed to fit fire or smoke detectors and alarms, failed to provide escape routes with suitable lighting and failed to ensure fire escapes could be used safely and quickly.

A spokesman for the Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service Fire said:

"Under fire safety regulations every ‘responsible person’ is required to carry out a Fire Risk Assessment. This may be done as part of the general Health and Safety Risk Assessment, or as a separate and specific Fire Risk Assessment.

Regrettably in this instance the responsible person had failed to undertake a Fire Risk Assessment which would have identified the unsuitable use of the space heater along with the lack of general fire precaution, and steps required to ensure public safety."

The store owner was also found guilty of offences under the Health and Safety at Work Act brought by West Lancashire Council.

Fire Safety - Some simple steps

Although it is the employer's responsibility to carry out the Fire Safety Risk Assessment (FSRA) and to make suitable and suffiicient arrangements for the overall management of fire safety, it is still very much everybody’s responsibility to reduce the risk of fire. Employers and employees have simple, but important, contributions to make. Here are a few simple ways in which we can all make our workplaces are safer in this regard.

Sources of ignition

Ensure that sources of ignition are kept away from flammable materials. For example take care when using portable
heaters that they are away from waste bins, fabrics and other furnishings. Remember that all electrical devices get
hot and make sure they are well ventilated.
Always report electrical defects and do not use defective electrical equipment.

Smoking

If you smoke, ensure that you do so in the appropriate, designated areas.
Make sure that you extinguish cigarettes in proper ash trays and never throw them in a general waste bin. Prior to
smoking controls in the workplace, cigarettes were the single biggest cause of workplace fires.

Housekeeping and storage

Good housekeeping is essential. Waste paper and packaging make excellent fuel and should not be allowed to
accumulate. Make sure such materials are removed at least daily and where activities have led to a large amount of
such material accumulating, remove it straight away.
Where bins are designed to have lids, keep those lids shut. This will reduce oxygen supply that might otherwise
accelerate an accidental waste bin fire.
When disposing of cardboard or storing it for recycling always store it flat and compacted as much as possible. This
reduces the surface area exposed to oxygen and makes it harder to burn.
Make sure that all materials are stored in a safe place, away from sources of heat and never in a main walkway,
corridor or stairs. Remember that all walkways are emergency exit routes, not just the ones that are marked as such.
Materials stored in a corridor may not look much of a hazard in bright light in normal circumstances, but remember
that in an emergency many people may be rushing along the same route and lighting may be absent or severely reduced

Be prepared

Make sure you understand the fire procedures in your workplace.
Ensure that you know how to call the emergency services – do you need an extra 9 for an outside line?
Read the fire action notice and the instructions on your fire extinguishers now. Do not leave it until there is a fire to
find out what you should do.
Ensure you know where the gas isolation valve is, if appropriate.
Remember that fire extinguishers are to aid escape or to tackle very small fires only. Never try to put out a large
indoor fire yourself. Simply ensure the alarm is raised and get out.

Director disqualified for 4 years

The MD of a steel erection firm has been ordered to pay £45,000 and has been disqualified from serving as a director for four years after a worker was paralysed from the chest down. Two other companies have also been ordered to pay penalties totalling £172,000 for their part in the incident at a construction site in Glossop, Derbyshire back in February 2007.

During the installation of a new racking system, one of the workers fell over nine metres onto a concrete floor and has been unable to return to work since. He is likely to use a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

The HSE commented:

" ... (the worker) should have been provided with a safe system of work to protect against falls ... This could have included personal fall protection, such as a harness and work restraint lanyard fitted to a running line, and properly fitted safety nets”.

If you need help to meet your health and safety obligations, contact us

A Burnley tool manufacturer was fined £1,000 after one of its workers lost a finger when it became trapped in machinery.

The tool manufacturer was prosecuted by the HSE following the incident. The injured worker was using a piece of emery cloth to reduce the size of a metal component on a metalworking lathe. Predictably, the cloth became trapped by the rotating mechanism, pulling in his right hand. Mr Whittaker was wearing a glove at the time which pulled his hand further into the machinery.

The worker had not received training on how to operate the machine safely, or on the dangers of using emery cloths on metalworking lathes. The HSE investigation revealed that the company had failed to assess adequately the risks of using emery cloths on rotating equipment and had not implemented a safe system of work to control the risks.

The HSE commented:

"Paul Whittaker has been unable to return to work and his injury has significantly affected his ability to grip and lift with his right hand. Sadly injuries like the one he suffered are all too common.

"A significant proportion of incidents at lathes are caused by emery clothes being used in an unsafe way. If Mr Whittaker had been warned against using a piece of emery cloth while he worked on the lathe, he would not have lost his finger."

"This incident is also a reminder that gloves should not be worn when working with rotating parts. I hope manufacturers learn lessons from this case so that no more workers suffer permanent injuries in the future."

Missing guard - bread maker loses finger

A specialist bread manufacturing company was fined after a worker was injured by a dough mixing machine and had his finger amputated.

The worker was using a spiral mixing machine to make dough when his left hand came into contact with the unguarded beater of the mixing machine. Consequently, part of his left index finger had to be amputated.

An investigation by the HSE revealed that the guard covering the dangerous parts of the machine had been missing for some time before the incident. Further to this, previous advice from the HSE regarding the maintenance of machinery in the factory had been ignored.

The Barnet based bread making company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER)and was fined £3,500 (with costs of £2,926).

The HSE inspector commented:

"This incident could easily have been avoided. The hazards associated with this type of machine are understood within the food manufacturing industry and there is clear guidance on the guarding standards which should be followed.

"There were clear failings on this occasion. Had a simple guard been fitted to this machine then ... would never have suffered these injuries."

Worker nearly loses foot in machinery

A Bradford farming company was prosecuted by the HSE after an employee was seriously injured after slipping into a manure machine. The employee lost his big toe and part of the heel of his left foot, broke all his toes and severely damaged the ankle of his right foot when he fell into a manure auger.

An investigation by the HSE revealed that the auger, a screw conveyor that takes the manure out of a battery hen house, was not sufficiently guarded, allowing the the worker to slipp in and to trap both feet.

The court was told that the doctor attending the incident became so concerned for the man's welfare that firefighters seriously considered removing his foot as the only means of getting him out of the machine. The worker is currently still off work and recovering from his injuries.

The employer was fined £2,000 (with costs of £1,395) after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998

Following the trial, the HSE inspector commented:

"This worker nearly lost his foot, and he has suffered long term injuries - all because his employer failed to ensure the machine was properly guarded.

... (the Compnay)needed to install properly-fitted guarding to this machine, to prevent this incident.

... Employers must thoroughly plan work activities around dangerous machinery, to account for any risks and to avoid these incidents from happening."

Worker dies in sweet making machine

The UK's largest confectionery firm has been fined a total of £300,000 after an employee was crushed to death in one of its sweet-making machines.

A 33 year operator was killed while he was clearing a blockage in one of the machines at the Poole plant in February 2008. It is understood that the operator climbed into the machine and then the mechanism restarted he became trapped. The opeator died of his injuries and was pronounced dead at the scene.

The company was found guilty of breaches under Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and of breaching Regulation 3 (1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

The company was fined £150,000 for the Section 2 offense and a further £150,000 for failure to carry out suitable and sufficient assessmetns of the risks as required under the regulations charge and ordered to pay full costs of nerarly £73,000.

Following the hearing, an HSE inspector said:

"This tragic case highlights the need to ensure that machines are safely isolated before any maintenance takes place so it cannot unexpectedly start up. Simply pressing a stop button does not adequately isolate a machine.

If the machine in this case had been properly isolated from the electrical power source before (the operator) attempted to clear the blockage, this accident would never have happened.

A proper risk assessment would have highlighted the dangers of entrapment. All employees need to be adequately trained in correct company procedures - whether it's for clearing blockages, operating machines or any other high risk activity."

Farmer worker crushed to death

A family run farm in East Lothian has been fined £20,000 after a worker was crushed to death by a one-tonne concrete panel. Back in June 2008 the farm worker was helping to build a perimeter wall at an open hay shed when the pre-cast concrete panel toppled over and crushed him. He died from his injuries at the scene

COSHH and smaller businesses

COSHH (the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002) is often an area for concern for businesses, especially smaller businesses. It an area of health and safety that is poorly understood and is viewed with mysticism.

Like all aspects of health and safety, small businesses need a considered approach to COSHH, but they must not assume that it does not apply to them or that it does not affect them. A simple process would be:

• review the substances present of site
• assess the hazards associated with them
• reduce the number of hazardous substances
• replace hazardous substances with safe (or at least safer) alternatives
• assess the risk from the use of the reduced inventory of substances
• implement control measures
• enforce the appropriate use of control measures

Above all, apply common sense. For further advice and guidance, please contact us.

Food Safety - New Training Course Commission

We have just been retained to write the script for an interactive food safety training course (an e-learning course). This should prove to be both challenging and instructive.

Director banned for 5 years for health and safety failings

A Worcestershire company and its managing director was fined a total of £87,000 following a series of health and safety failures. These health and safety failures saw workers exposed to a variety of risks, including: exposure to lead, falls from height and being crushed by falling objects.

The managing director of the Company was criticised by the HSE for “flagrant lack of attention” to the safety of employees at the Stratford-upon-Avon based company.

Following a tip-off from a concerned employee, the HSE carried out an investigation that resulted in 4 Prohibition and 4 Improvement Notices being issued. Workers at the plant were found to be spray-painting fuel tanks without appropriate safety equipment, even though the paint contained toxic lead chromate. Specialist HSE inspectors took air, blood and urine samples to assess the workers’ exposure to lead, and five of them were found to have higher levels than the UK average.

The workers were required to work from beneath half-tonne vessels that they were painting, with nothing to prevent them from being crushed if the lifting equipment, which had not been maintained or checked properly, had failed.

To paint the tops of the tanks, which were two metres above the concrete floor, the workers simply stood on them, with no equipment to stop them from falling. The managing director ignored a Prohibition Notice in relation to this unsafe practice and continued to instruct his employees to work on top of the tanks.

The Company pleaded guilty to the following breaches of health and safety legislation:

Regulation 6(1)(c) of the Control of Lead at Work Regulations 2002
Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations (WAHR) 2005
Regulation 8(1)(c) of Lifting Operation Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998
Regulation 21(1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992
Regulation 13(2) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999

The Company was also found guilty of contravening Prohibition Notices on 3 occasions. As a result, it was fined a total of £70,000 and ordered to pay £27,507 in costs. It is understood that the Company is now in administration.

The managing director was fined £17,000 with £9169 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching reg.4(1) of the WAHR 2005 and s33(1)(g) of the HSWA 1974 and he was banned from directing any company for five years under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

An HSE inspector commented:

Companies and their managing directors have a legal responsibility to protect their employees. No one should be expected to work in the conditions found at (the company), and it is quite right that an employee contacted HSE to complain. Failure to properly manage health and safety can have catastrophic results.

If you need help to meet your Health & Safety obligation, contact us.

Health & Safety - What's the minimum that I can get away with?

With respect to health and safety it is not uncommon to hear phrases (from employers) such as: “I only want to do what I have to …”, “What’s the minimum I must do to be legal…” and “What can I get away with doing…”? The most common duty, with respect to health and safety at work, is to reduce the level of risk to as low a level as is reasonably practicable (ALARP). Although there are some cases where a higher standard is required, most cases fall under the auspices of Section 2 or Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, Etc 1974. This may be paraphrased as creating the duty on the employer to “ensure the health and safety of employees (and non-employees who may be effected by the undertaking), so far as is reasonably practicable (SFARP)”. This means that the minimum legal standard is to do what is reasonably practicable.

What does Reasonably Practicable mean?
The term "so far as is reasonably practicable" (SFARP) means that the degree of risk in a particular situation can be balanced against the time, trouble, cost and physical difficulty of taking measures to avoid the risk, as decided by the Court of Appeal in Edwards v The National Coal Board 1949. If these resources are so disproportionate to the risk that it would be unreasonable to expect any employer to have to incur them to prevent it, the employer is not obliged to do so unless there is a specific requirement that he does. The greater the risk, the more likely it is that it is reasonable to go to very substantial expense, trouble and invention to reduce it. If, however, the consequences and extent of a risk are small, insistence on great expense would not be considered reasonable. It is important to remember that the judgement is an objective one and the size or financial position of the employer are immaterial.

How does this relate to Risk Assessments within the workplace?
All employers are required (by Regulation 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, as amended) to undertake assessments of the risks (to employees and to non-employees) arising from their undertaking. After determining the level of risk, SFARP has the effect of helping to determine how far to go with the control measures that need to be introduced to reduce the risks does to ALARP. When considered in this light, the question’s that were raised at the start of this article become poignant. Doing the minimum actually means reaching quite a high standard of health and safety as the only defence to not doing more is that it is not reasonably practicable to do so.

Is there an order that needs to be considered when determining the measures that are needs to reduce risks to as low a level as is reasonably practicable?
Schedule 1 to the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 specifies a hierarchy that is to be followed when contemplating and introducing measures to control the risks:
(a) avoiding risks
(b) evaluating the risks which cannot be avoided
(c) combating the risks at source
(d) adapting the work to the individual, especially as regards the design of workplaces, the choice of work equipment and the choice of working and production methods, with a view, in particular, to alleviating monotonous work and work at a predetermined work-rate and to reducing their effect on health
(e) adapting to technical progress
(f) replacing the dangerous by the non-dangerous or the less dangerous
(g) developing a coherent overall prevention policy which covers technology, organisation of work, working conditions, social relationships and the influence of factors relating to the working environment
(h) giving collective protective measures priority over individual protective measures and
(i) giving appropriate instructions to employees
Other pieces of legislation, such as the Work at Height Regulations 2005, Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002, Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002, Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, etc. create similar hierarchies.

What about the “knock-on” effects of control measures into other areas?
Risk assessments need to be well thought through and they need to be holistic: all factors need to be considered, including any new risks created by the introduction of the control measures designed to reduce the existing risk. For example:
• a small reduction in the toxicity of a substance should be weighed against the increased risks that might be associated with a flammability or explosion risk, etc.
• the reduction in manual handling risks brought about by the use of mechanical handling (such as a fork lift truck or a conveyor system) need to be balances against the increased risks arising from vehicle movement, falling loads, machinery guarding and mechanical risks, etc.

Need help? Contact us at LRB Consulting.co.uk

Night-Shift Work – a link to breast cancer in women?

Introduction
It is well established that there can be undesirable consequences for those working shifts outside standard daytime hours, particularly those covering the night or with early morning starts. Over the past few years, evidence has been emerging that suggests that night shifts are bad for you. Typical symptoms include: fatigue, disturbed sleep, digestive problems and a greater risk of accidents at work. Some studies also show a higher risk of breast cancer in women who sleep for fewer hours at night.

Danish Government pays out for breast cancer in shift workers
In March 2009, the Danish government paid compensation to around forty women who had developed breast cancer after long spells of shift work involving working at night. This decision followed a ruling by Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, which is part of the United Nations World Health Organisation) that night shifts probably increase the risk of developing cancer. Part of the function of the IARC is to study and rank cancer risks. Category One risks are known carcinogens, including asbestos, but night-working has been categorised as only one level below that, i.e. a probable cause of cancer. The IARC reached this conclusion after looking at a wide number of studies in humans and in animals. A report published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute reported a 36% greater risk of breast cancer for women who had worked night shifts for more than 30 years, compared with women who had never worked nights.

A hormonal mechanism for breast cancer
When faced with a diagnosis of cancer, people want be able to identify a single factor in their history that they can identify as the single cause of the disease. Cancer, however, is a complicated disease and rather than thinking in terms of a single cause, its best considered as being the result of a combination of many factors, which all have a small, but significant, contribution. In the case of breast cancer these factors would include: the woman’s genes, her age, her weight, her race, how much she drinks, when she started (and stopped) her periods, how many children she has had, whether (and for how long) she took birth control pills or hormone replacement therapy, and how long she breast-fed.

In 2001, several epidemiological studies providing evidence linking breast cancer in women with prolonged periods of working at night were reported. Within these studies, a biologically plausible mechanism related to the suppression of melatonin was suggested as a potential explanation for these findings. According to this theory, this association arises from reductions in serum levels of melatonin that follow from nocturnal exposure to light. Melatonin is known to suppress tumour growth in experimental animal models, and reduced melatonin levels may increase ovarian oestrogen release. In the normal pattern of life, our eyes sense the reduction of natural light levels. This triggers the pineal gland to begin the secretion of the hormone melatonin and as the melatonin levels rise in our bodies we tend to get sleepy. In women, as the melatonin levels rise, the production of the female sex hormone oestrogen decreases. It is believed that the production of oestrogen stimulates the growth of breast tissue including some breast cancers. It may be considered that more light results in less melatonin and in more oestrogen, which means a greater risk of cancer.

Information from studies
Nurse study - In 1988, nearly 80,000 nurses who had no history of breast cancer were questioned about previous overnight shift work. The study participants were then followed for ten years. The resulting analysis was then adjusted for potential confounding factors and it was found that women who had worked rotating night shifts for 30 years or longer had significantly increased risk for developing breast cancer compared with those who had never worked night shifts (a relative risk of 1.36). Among nurses with less than 30 years of shift work, risk was slightly elevated but fell just short of significance (a relative risk of 1.08).

Second study - In a separate study, 813 women with breast cancer were compared with 793 age-matched controls. A history of overnight shift work during the previous 10 years was associated with significantly increased risk for breast cancer (an “odds ratio” of 1.6, after adjustment for other risk factors). Breast cancer risk was also found to be increased significantly among women who frequently did not sleep during the middle of the night for any reason (there was an “odds ratio” of 1.7 for the group with at least 2.6 nights per week of interrupted sleep).

Danish Study - In a population-based case-control study, the breast cancer risk among Danish women aged between 30 and 54 who worked predominantly at night was investigated. Individual employment histories were reconstructed back as far as 1964 for each of 7035 women with breast cancer along with individually matched controls from the records of a nationwide pension scheme with compulsory membership. The “odds ratio” for breast cancer among women who worked at night at least half of a year was 1.5 and there was a tendency to increasing odds ratio by increasing duration of night time employment.

Practical steps to reduce the risks of breast cancer - for shift workers
Shift workers can reduce their personal risk by eliminating some lifestyle risk factors, by:
• stopping the use of tobacco
• keeping alcohol intake moderate
• exercising regularly
• maintaining a healthy weight
• getting enough sleep on a regular basis
• make sure that their bedroom is completely dark when they sleep (both at night and during daytime, to make sure that melatonin secretion is not affected)

“Be Breast Aware” – there is a free leaflet available from the NHS in a range of languages. Breast aware encourages women to:
• Take care of your own well-being
• Know what is normal for you
• Know what to look and feel for
• Report any changes without delay
• Attend for breast screening if aged 50 for over

Practical steps to reduce the risks of breast cancer - for the employer• Train and educate shift workers on what constitutes a healthy lifestyle and how to achieve it and maintain good quality sleep
• Design shift schedules to allow sufficient rest and provide the opportunity to obtain adequate sleep.
• Keep overtime at a healthy level
• Introduce health surveillance for night shift workers