Managers need to manage (even when it comes to safety) - Part 4

Part 4: Control of Contractors

Many people assume that when they appoint a contractor to carry out work for them that they have not further responsibility for the safety of the contractor. There have been many cases over the last few years that involve organisations paying out large fines for failing to ensure the safety of contractors. In a recent case, a paper maker was fined £260,000 (under Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974) following the death of a contractor who felt through a fragile roof. When being appointed, the contractor said that crawling boards would be used. After the accident occurred, it was established that crawling boards were not used and it was also established that the paper maker had not made reasonable efforts to ensure that the contractors were carrying out the work safely, in the manner proposed. “Companies must make sure work contractors do for them is properly planned and organised, and monitor what actually happens when the work takes place”.

Managers need to manage (even when it comes to safety) - Part 3

Part 3: Food Safety

Although Food Safety is often seen as a different discipline to health and safety, many of the principles are the same. Good management involves looking at what is going on in the business, understanding the implications (i.e. the risks) and responding in an appropriate and proportionate manner. When warning letters are received from the local authority highlighting some food hygiene failures within the business and also suggesting some simple and low cost ways of rectifying the situation it is not appropriate or proportionate to ignore the situation. As a result of such (lack of) action, the operator of a takeaway outlet in North Wales has been jailed for eight months following an outbreak of E. coli attributed to the premises.

Managers need to manage (even when it comes to safety) - Part 2

Part 2: Fire Safety

The fire safety arrangements of businesses are under scrutiny from the Fire and Rescue services. The fire safety risk assessment for the premises is a starting point, but it needs to be acted upon and turned into something meaningful. Poundland has recently been fined more than £20,000 for having obstructed or blocked fire escape routes. A fire officer found three of the four potential exit routes from a three storey premises were blocked from the outside by stock crates. As a result, the fire officer took the unusual step of evacuating the premises until the situation had been made safe and the exit routes were cleared. The Company pleaded guilty to three charges of failing to keep the fire exits clear (as required by Article 14(1) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005). The Company was also fined for not properly training the temporary manager (as required under Article 21(1)(b)) and was subject to costs of over £7000.

Managers need to manage (even when it comes to safety)

Part 1: Machinery Safety

There is a problem with safety features: they can often be bypassed. Many safety professionals will have seen instances of safety interlock systems on equipment, such as CNC machines, being defeated by fixing the key into the lock part of the system either by using a spare key or by detaching the main key from the frame of the equipment. Often this is justified by the site management as being the “only way the work can be done”. This state of mind does not stand scrutiny as many other companies manage to achieve safe operation with same equipment doing the same job. The failing is often the attitude or approach to safety management in the minds of the managers, supervisors and workers.

This (lack of safety) practise has recently cost a manufacturing firm over £26,000 in fines and costs. The company was fined after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. This regulation requires employers to ensure effective measures are taken to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery.

Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings has become the first company to be convicted of the new offence of corporate manslaughter.

Back in September 2008 a young geologist was killed whilst working for Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings. He died while investigating soil conditions in a deep trench on a development plot in Stroud, when it collapsed and killed him.

The Crown Prosecution Service told the court that the geologist was left working alone in the three and a half metre-deep trench to 'finish-up' when the company director left for the day. The two people who owned the development plot decided to stay at the site as they knew the geologist was working alone in the trench. About quarter of an hour later they heard a muffled noise and then a shout for help. While one of the plot-owners called the emergency services, the other one ran to the trench where he saw that a surge of soil had fallen in and had buried the geologist up to his head. He climbed into the trench and removed some of the soil to enable him to breathe. At that point, more earth fell so quickly into the pit that it covered the geologist completely. Despite the plot owner’s best efforts, the young geologist died of traumatic asphyxiation.

The prosecution's case was that the geologist was working in a dangerous trench because Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings' systems had failed to take all reasonably practicable steps to protect him from working in that way. The jury found that their system of work in digging trial pits was wholly and unnecessarily dangerous. The company ignored well-recognised industry guidance that prohibited entry into excavations more than 1.2 metres deep, by requiring junior employees to enter into and work in unsupported trial pits, typically from 2 to 3.5 metres deep. The young geologist was working in just such a pit when he died.

There was no person in the dock during the three-week trial as it is the company, rather than an individual, that is charged with corporate manslaughter. The case was investigated by Gloucestershire Constabulary and supported by the Health and Safety Executive.

Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings were sentenced on Thursday 17 February 2011 and were fined £385,000.

Please vsit our website

Latest (mid March 2011) - an appeal may be launched!

If you need to tackle a fire (simple rules)

Lots of people put out small fires in their homes and at their businesses quite safely. Some people, however, are killed or injured as a result of tackling a fire that is beyond their capabilities. Here are some simple rules to help you decide whether you should tackle a fire:

- Only tackle a fire when it is in its very early stages.

- Give consideration to your own safety and to the safety of other people and make sure you can escape from the fire if you need to. Never let a fire block you exit.

- think about the position of yourself, the fire and the escape route.

- Remember that fire extinguishers are only for fighting a fire in its very early stages. Never tackle a fire if it is starting to spread (of has spread) to other items in the room or if the room is filling with smoke. More people are killed by the smoke than by the fire (in the order of 70% of fire deaths are caused by smoke and fumes).

- If you cannot put out the fire or if the extinguisher becomes empty, get out and get everyone else out of the building immediately, closing all doors behind you as you go.

- Telephone the fire brigade.

Visit our website

A worker at a Glossop packaging manufacturer was killed when a machine he was working on was activated while he was still inside. The Company was fined £50,000 with £76,150 costs.

A fifty year old maintenance worker suffered fatal head injuries back in September 2006. Following an investigation into the death by the HSE the company was prosecuted and later sentenced at Birmingham Crown Court. The Court heard that the father of three was carrying out maintenance work to the inside of a 'cut and crease' machine, used to manufacture packaging, when it was switched on by the operator. The maintenance worker, who had been working for the company for less than two months, was struck on the head by bars that transfer cardboard through the machine and was killed instantly.

At an earlier hearing at Chesterfield Magistrate's Court on 21 May 2010, Glossop Carton and Print Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by putting workers at risk. The firm was fined £50,000 with £76,150 costs.

The maintenance man’s ex-wife and mother of two of his children, said:

His children have been totally devastated by Clive's death and continue to miss him terribly ... The hardest thing was telling them their dad had been killed. I remember it vividly and they still find it difficult to accept he's gone. He was a good dad and loved them very much ... The last few years have just been horrendous. His children now have to live without a father for the rest of their lives because of the company's negligence.

After sentencing, the investigating HSE inspector commented:

Mr H tragically died because simple measures were not taken by Glossop Carton and Print to prevent the machine being switched on while he was inside. The maintenance of machinery often involves people working in dangerous situations not encountered during normal production work. People will continue to die in horrific circumstances if employers don't plan, control and monitor maintenance work to machinery. Both machine operators and maintenance workers should be given adequate training. If a simple procedure for cutting the power supply to the machine had been followed then Mr H's death could have been avoided.

Visit our website