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

Food firm fined - employee falls into machinery

An international food company that supplies some of the supermarkets around the country has been fined after a worker was hurt while cleaning processing machinery.

The Magistrates' Court heard that the worker was cleaning a machine consisting of three tanks which tipped food into each other. To clean the machine properly, operatives needed to stand on the frame of the machine to reach some of the parts.

The operative was injured as they reached up and then lost their footing and so fell into one of the 1.5 metre deep tanks. This resulted in the operative losing consciousness. The operative was rescued by colleagues who heard them shout as they fell.

The injured operative was subsequently off work for five weeks and reported suffering from severe headaches and pains in her neck and back, for which they had to take pain killers.

The Company was fined £3,500 and ordered to pay costs of £2,091 after pleading guilty to breaching section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

The HSE Inspector said:

"No-one at the Company realised that climbing was involved cleaning this machine. A risk assessment should have been carried out and an examination of how work at height was being undertaken.

"The company has now introduced a system of cleaning using long-handled brushes, which goes to show how simple it can be to prevent this incident in the first place.

"This case highlights the need for employers to be aware of what goes on during the night shift. All staff have a right to the same standard of care irrespective of their working hours."

Facilities Management - Landlord jailed for fire safety offences

Facilities management companies, managing agents and landlords need to be aware that they are responsible for the premises that they manage (especially the common areas of these premises). This relates to all relevant aspects of health and safety, including fire safety.

A Landlord has received and a four month custodial sentence for failing to comply with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The London Fire Brigade prosecuted the defendant after a fatal fire resulted in the death of an individual at one of the many properties owned by the accused.

It was discovered that the defendant or his company had never completed a fire risk assessment and there were no provisions made for fire safety, smoke detection, emergency signs and many escape routes which would be used in the event of a fire were blocked.

As well as being sent to prison, the company of the guilty party was fined £21,000, plus costs.

If you need assistance with Fire Safety or any aspect of Facilities Management Safety, take a look at out website.

The cost of failing to complete Fire Risk Assessment

Following a fire at a hotel in Lancashire, the managing director was fined £18,000 (with costs of £1750). The company responsible for the hotel admitted responsibility for a number of offences in court. These included -
•Not completing a fire risk assessment
•Failure to maintain clear emergency exits
•Failure to maintain alarm and detection systems
•Failure to protect means of escape
•Not training the staff in fire safety

This prosecution should send a clear message that the owner of businesses must be fully aware of their responsibility with regard to fire safety and must have implemented measures necessary to keep staff and customers safe

New Fire Safety Legislation

The Fire Safety (England) (Employees' Capabilities) Regulations 2010 came into force on 06 April 6 2010.

These regulations have been issued to close the percieved gap in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO). They require that employers delegating fire safety tasks to employees take into account the fire safety capabilities of the employees to whom these tasks are delegated. This "new" fire safety legislation formalises a duty which was (arguably) already implicitly present in the existing legislation, i.e., the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

Regulation 2 of this new legislation requires the employer to take employees’ capabilities into consideration when entrusting them with fire safety responsibilities:

Every employer must, in entrusting tasks to employees, take into account their capabilities as regards health and safety, so far as those capabilities relate to fire.

This is an example of legislation being used to enforce the application of common sense. Fire safety is essential to the safe running of all businesses. If you need help with any aspect of your fire safety (or your health and safety), please contact us through our website.