This is a five minute podcast covering some important aspects of fire safety: introducing the duties of the "Responsible Person" and the talking about what we can all do within our premises to assist with fire safety.
Link to download the Podcast
Showing posts with label employee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label employee. Show all posts
Sunday, 30 October 2011
Thursday, 30 December 2010
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:
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."
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
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:
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."
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
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:
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."
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)