Health and Safety
Briefing

Eye Injuries

Eye injuries are becoming more common in the workplace and can range from the relatively trivial, such as irritating the eye with soap, to extremely serious, resulting in permanent loss of vision. Whils eye injuries can occur in many settings, this article is mainly concentrating on occupational exposure.

The more common causes of eye injuries include:

• something like a small particle of grit or a twig from a particular process damages the transparent front part of the eye known as the cornea – this type of injury is known as a corneal abrasion
• a foreign body such as a small piece of wood or metal gets stuck in the eye from a process that creates swarf
• a sudden blow to the eye, from a larger piece of material for example, causes the middle section of the eye (the uvea) to become swollen – this type of injury is known as traumatic uveitis

Less common and more serious types of eye injury include:

• exposure to harmful chemicals – this is known as an ocular chemical burn e.g. vapour from formaldehyde
• exposure to cryogenics (liquid nitrogen) or lasers
• ice from a freezer
• the eye becomes cut and starts bleeding

 

Action to Take

Wash eyes out for 20 minutes if it is thought they have been exposed to a chemical. Ideally, the eye should be washed with saline solution, but tap water will be fine if saline is unavailable. Use plenty of water. Water from a garden hose or water fountain is okay if outside work is being undertaken. Then proceed immediately to the nearest A&E department. It's also important to go to A&E if the eye is cut and it starts bleeding or if you have something stuck in your eye. Never try to remove anything from the eye as you could damage it. Less serious eye injuries such as corneal abrasion and traumatic uveitis do not usually require immediate medical attention. But contact with the injured party’s GP must be sought if symptoms show no sign of improvement after a few days or symptoms worsen.

Prevention

• Not all eye injuries can be prevented, but you can reduce your risks by taking some precautions under assessment, for example:
• wearing appropriate eyewear when carrying out tasks that could damage your eyes, such as wearing safety goggles when using power tools to grind or chisel objects
• carefully reading the labels when using products and work in a well-ventilated area, making sure spray nozzles are pointing away from you before spraying
   

Eyesight Protection

Any requirement for eye protection will be identified by a thorough risk assessment. Staff who usually wear glasses will need either over-goggles to fit over their spectacles or prescription safety eyewear. Eyewear covers not only general laboratory safety spectacles, goggles or visors / faceshields but also specialised, sometimes prescription based eyewear and may combine prescription lenses with the safety-based goggle or spectacle.

Over-goggles (or eye shields) are suitable for many environments but shouldn't be provided to spectacle-wearers for long-term use, as they don't give comfortable vision, due to the effect of light refraction through two sets of lenses. The nature of the hazard will determine whether safety glasses should have plastic, glass or polycarbonate lenses. The latter are usually the lightest and offer the greatest impact resistance.

There are many and varied pieces of legislation, which in this case can be defined as Acts or Regulations which are Law and must be complied with. These include: The Health and Safety at Work Act etc Act 1974; The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999; Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998; Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 2002; Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992; Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. To provide aid and guidance in compliance there are also a number of standards or agreed methods of best practice available to support the legislation. Eye protection is defined under the EN (European Norm) standard. Safety glasses don't protect against all hazards and it is important to consider the full range of personal protective equipment (PPE) options, under the terms of the risk assessment, for anything more than a low-energy impact risk. All safety eyewear issued in the UK must conform to EN166:2002, which comprises different levels of impact resistance. Low-energy impact grade (EN166 F) is the highest level of resistance offered by safety glasses. It will resist a 6mm, 0.86g ball travelling at 45 metres per second. Decisions on impact protection levels shouldn't be left to the optician dispensing the prescription safety glasses, as they can offer only general advice.

Type and Purpose

There's no requirement for employers to arrange and pay for eye tests before providing prescription safety glasses, but it's worth checking the employee's prescription is up to date - the safety glasses could be of limited use if a routine re-test (usually every two years) leads to a new prescription.

The safety glasses should match the type the employee usually wears, whether single vision, bifocals or varifocals. Safety eyewear styling is limited by functionality, but it is available in a small range of male, female and unisex styles. Frames are almost always metal or plastic. Nickel alloy is the most commonly used metal, and polyamide, polycarbonate and cellulose acetate the most common plastic materials. Industry-specific considerations, such as the unsuitability of metal frames for food preparation environments, may limit the employee's choices. Safety glasses usually include sideshields for lateral protection, which shouldn't restrict the wearer's field of view unnecessarily.

The lenses should be replaced at least every three years and the frames every five; the usual eye-test cycle of two years is a suitable interval for most users to purchase a new pair of glasses. Broken or damaged safety glasses must be returned, usually via the prescribing optician, to the EN166 licensed manufacturer to be repaired or replaced.

There are several different ways to purchase safety eyewear. Larger companies can set up accounts directly with safety frame manufacturers or purchase direct from PPE catalogues.

Worker Loses Sight

The incident occurred when a compressed air hose whipped him in the face. The injured man, who was carrying out maintenance work to clean a paint fume filter, was not wearing eye protection at the time. When he had finished, he isolated the compressed air supply at the connection point and went to disconnect the equipment. However, he was unaware the pressure from the flexible hose needed venting before disconnection. As a result, the hose whipped and struck him in the face, hitting his eye and breaking his cheekbone. The worker has permanently lost the sight in his right eye but he has been able to return to work. The resulting investigation found the company had failed to provide the worker with sufficient information, instruction or training on the equipment he was using when the incident happened.

The company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £7,813 in costs.

Rochdale Manufacturer Fined £50,000

A Rochdale manufacturer has been fined £50,000 following a health and safety inspection which found the majority of its machines were unsafe to use. Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) had to return to the site for a second day after finding dozens of missing or inadequate guards on machines. The company, which employs 80 people at its plant, was prosecuted following the inspection on 27th and 28th October 2011. Manchester Crown Court was told that one machine, used to compact bales of quilt, had been wrapped with pieces of cardboard as the only way of attempting to guard and protect workers from the dangerous moving parts inside. A loose board had been placed over a large electric motor and pulley system on another machine, and guards were generally found to be in a poor condition or missing altogether. Inspectors issued three Prohibition Notices stopping some work immediately, and 12 Improvement Notices requiring changes to be made.

The company admitted a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by failing to ensure the safety of its employees. The company was fined £50,000 and ordered to pay £14,614 in prosecution costs on 12 June 2013.

Health and safety legislation is goal setting and underpinned by the requirement to adequately control risks. We are reminded that there does not have to be an accident for a prosecution to be brought by the regulator. Simply exposing persons to uncontrolled risks, whether they cause injury or not, can lead to prosecution as this case illustrates. 

A quarter of all workplace deaths occurred in the manufacturing industry in 2011/12, despite the sector only accounting for around 10% of the British workforce. A total of 31 people lost their lives while working in the sector, and more than 17,000 injuries were reported.

The Impact of the Equality Act 2010 on Workplace Health and Safety Duties

Employers have a legal responsibility to ensure the safety of all employees. However, this can present a challenge when protecting employees who have become more vulnerable to risk because of disability. Nick Wilson, Director of Health & Safety Services at Ellis Whittam, sets out how to meet the obligations of the Health and Safety Disability legislation.

The Equality Act 2010
The Equality Act 2010 (EA) applies to all employees and makes it unlawful to discriminate against such disabled people in terms of recruitment, promotion, training, working conditions or dismissal. The EA defines a person with a disability as a person who has a physical or mental impairment (e.g. including learning disabilities) which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect. The EA extends to include people who have some forms of cancer, HIV/AIDS or multiple sclerosis.

The EA requires the employer to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ within their workplace to accommodate disabled staff. However, the duty to make reasonable adjustment applies only where a disabled person is at a substantial disadvantage (compared with a non-disabled person) because of the physical features of the employer's premises or the working conditions.

The Health and Safety at Work act Act 1974
The Health and Safety at Work act Act 1974 (HSAW) requires every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of all employees. The Act is supported by the duties contained in The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 which require every employer to make a suitable and sufficient assessment of risks within their workplace. A balance must be made between the risks that are presented and the time, cost and effort of those measures necessary to adequately control the risk. If it is considered that a person’s impairment may increase the risk then the employer must look very carefully at whether it has done all that is reasonably practicable prior to implementing risk control solutions.

In order to meet the obligations of both the Health and Safety at Work and Equality Acts, employers should:

• make an individual, objective and competent assessment of any risk that may be associated with employing the particular person in the specific job and;
• consider and, where possible, implement reasonable adjustments which would reduce or remove any unacceptable risks identified by the risk assessment.
   

Risk Assessments
When carrying out the risk assessment it is important to focus on facts, not assumptions. You should assess the individual in relation to the essential requirements of the job and avoid blanket restrictions that may be held to be discriminatory. Before making reasonable adjustments and introducing risk control measures, employers should consult with the disabled employee who may well be able to identify a simple change that would overcome the potential risk or reduce it to an acceptable level. Others who should be consulted include line managers, occupational health advisers, health and safety consultants and disability employment advisers.
 

Reasonable Adjustments
In determining whether it is reasonable for an employer to have to take a particular step in order to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments regard shall be had to:

• The extent to which the step would prevent the effect in relation to which the duty is imposed
• Whether it is practicable to take the step
• Financial and other costs
• How taking the step would disrupt business activities
• The nature of the employer’s activities and size of its undertaking

The following are examples of the steps that an employer may take in order to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments:

• Making adjustments to the premises
• Allocating some of the disabled person’s duties to another person
• Acquiring or modifying equipment
• Modifying instructions or reference materials
• Altering hours of work or training
• Allowing time off for rehabilitation, treatment or assessment
• Providing supervision or other support

If the risk is still found to be unacceptable and no reasonable adjustment can effectively remove or lessen it, you may have no choice but to terminate the employee’s contract. However, in order to justify such a dismissal you would need to be able to demonstrate that you had undertaken a properly conducted risk assessment which:

• provides a reason that is both material and substantial, and
• is not irrational.
   

And prior to dismissal you will need to show that you have considered all other possible reasonable adjustments, including redeployment to another vacancy where possible.

In summary, this is an area of legislation that is peppered with potential pit falls where even a well meaning employer can all too easily fall foul of the law. You should always take advice when it comes to matters of meeting your obligations under disability and health and safety legislation.

Asbestos Contamination

A decorating company has been fined after it exposed employees, agency staff and members of the public to potentially fatal asbestos material. The incident happened during a refurbishment project at offices over a period of several weeks in 2009. Widespread contamination and spread of asbestos both inside and outside the building were found during a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation which also revealed that some material removed from the site as non-hazardous may have included asbestos-containing materials. As a result, four employees and 14 agency staff working under the control of the company were exposed to asbestos dust and fibres that can cause respiratory problems and even incurable lung diseases.

Company employees carried out the removal of asbestos insulation board ceiling over two weeks while wearing normal work clothes that became contaminated with asbestos fibres. This may have led to the exposure of many more members of the public during their journey to and from the site over this two week period.

The company pleaded guilty to three breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. It was fined a total of £45,000 and ordered to pay £36,943 in costs.

Regulations on dealing safely with asbestos have been in place for many years and are widely known in the industry.

Fatal Fall

The director of a concrete structures firm has been ordered to pay a total of £25,000 in fines and costs after a worker died following a fall from height at a South Wales building site.

The construction company and director were prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) following the incident on 22nd January 2008.
An employee was dismantling a scaffold ladder access platform ahead of the installation of a roof and staircase on the fourth floor when he fell around 19 metres to the ground, narrowly missing a carpenter working directly below. The employee suffered multiple injuries, including a fractured skull. He was taken to hospital but died two days later.

An HSE investigation found the company had inadequate and ineffective health and safety management arrangements and there was little or no communication, information and instruction provided to its workforce.

The management team on site was not adequately trained in health and safety, despite repeated warnings by its health and safety consultants. This led to persistent and systematic failures to control risks at the site.

The Director was aware of the failings within his company - his workforce had raised concerns about the site – yet he failed to take responsibility for the company’s failings which allowed this culture to continue.

The Director pleaded guilty to breaching two counts of Section 37(1) of the same legislation. He was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £5,000 in costs.

The company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) and Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £130,000 and ordered to pay £52,500 in costs in the earlier hearing.

Homeworkers: The Invisible Workforce

Whether you are jealous of them or not, chances are that you have responsibility for some of the nation's estimated 3.8 million homeworkers. Nick Wilson, Director of Health & Safety Services at Ellis Whittam, sets out an employer's health and safety duties.

Let's face it, the attraction of stumbling out of bed and settling down for a day's work at home is far more appealing than a trip to work that is likely to be punctuated by traffic congestion or the late running of services. If not, perhaps you are more persuaded by the prospect of not having to spend too long deciding what to wear! Whatever the reason, homeworking is more likely to offer employees greater freedom to organise their employment to fit in with other parts of their hectic lives and bring some order to that delicate subject we call work/life balance.

Whilst homeworking is a real employment option to employers and employees it is not without its problems. Many people find it more stressful working at home, mainly because of emotional and technical isolation, and a sense of being out of touch with corporate culture. Work conducted by the Health and Safety Laboratory into the health and safety of homeworkers identified a range of work-related hazards perceived by homeworkers as causing accidents and ill-health, including DSE and ergonomics, poor seating, repetitive work and manual handling. The study also highlights the likelihood that specific factors in the home (such as the presence of children and animals) can turn relatively minor hazards into significant risks. As a result, homeworkers' needs are often not met by the health and safety measures introduced for their on-site colleagues.

What the Law Says
According to HSE guidance our legal obligations extend to "those people employed to work at home". This does not include staff who occasionally undertake work at home on a voluntary basis - in such instances the employee's home is not under the control of the employer, nor does the employer have a statutory obligation to maintain the home workplace in a safe condition.

The employers have a duty to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their employees, including homeworkers as set out in the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974 (HSWA). The Act is supported by many other regulations including, but not limited to, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regs 1999, the Health & Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992, the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and the The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992. Electrical equipment provided by the employer must be maintained under the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 (although electrical sockets and other parts of the homeworkers' domestic electrical system remain their responsibility).

Home Hazards
Homeworkers carry out a range of activities with potential to cause ill health/injury to both themselves and others in their home. Their situation is also compounded by the fact they normally work on their own. Some hazards are obvious and can easily be identified by the homeworker. Others may require a home visit by the employer's competent person to help in their identification. Home hazards include:

• Environmental Hazards: Lack of space, inadequate lighting, ventilation and poor temperature control may cause fatigue and stress. Insufficient storage facilities and congestion create slip/trip hazards. Often, work areas are not properly segregated from other parts of the home.

• Manual Handling: Handling heavy, bulky, difficult to grasp and unstable loads, e.g. files, boxes and laptop computers. Lack of assistance with a demanding task leaves the homeworker vulnerable to musculoskeletal disorders.

• Work Equipment: Equipment that is either unsuitable or not subject to periodic servicing and maintenance can become dangerous. Training or information on how to use the equipment may also be inadequate.

• Electrical Equipment: Faulty equipment may cause electrocution. Leads, cables and plugs must be properly maintained and inspected if they are not to become dangerous. Equipment must be suitable for the domestic voltage supply.

• VDUs: Using a computer or other kinds of display screen equipment can give rise to back problems, repetitive strain injury, or other musculoskeletal disorders. Employers have a duty to make sure that the display screen equipment used by all their employees is safe and does not affect their health.

• Harmful Substances: Flammable, toxic, corrosive and irritant chemicals may be hazardous to health if not properly controlled. Homeworkers soldering electronic components, for example, have been told to sit by an open window, which can just mean the draught carries fumes right into their breathing zone. Fibres and dusts can cause breathing difficulties or allergies due to poor ventilation.

• Fire: A lack of storage facilities and no regular collection of any waste material produced can be a fire risk.

• Work at Height: Access equipment, maintenance and lack of assistance with equipment such as footing a ladder.

• Psychological Stress: May arise from the social isolation of homeworking.

• First Aid: No help if an accident occurs or if homeworker feels unwell.

Managing the Risk
Before homeworking is authorised, the employer must conduct a risk assessment of the work, taking into account the hazards and how the task will interface with the environment. Normally a home visit should be undertaken and photographs or a plan drawn up of the area of the property for which the risks will be assessed. It is good practice to involve the homeworker in this process. In some instances, the homeworker may be able to make the initial appraisal themselves by using a checklist that identifies all the significant hazards likely to arise. Adequate training must be given to facilitate this.

If the hazard is significant, the employer must consider what steps to take to eliminate or reduce those risks as far as possible. If elimination is not practicable then ideally the area of the home used for work should be completely separate from the rest of the home. A spare room or outbuilding with a door that locks is best as it will help contain equipment so that it won't be a risk to other members of the household. It will also allow the individual to shut off from home life and the distractions it may cause.

If complete segregation of work from home is not possible then partial segregation is the next best option. Using equipment in a general area of the house such as a sitting or dining room is acceptable providing it is locked away when it is not in use. Homeworkers should be given a choice of furniture which in itself can encourage people to buy into the system. Some companies offer an allowance to spend on items that comply with the H&S requirements of the company.

Work equipment must be safe and without risk to the homeworker and other members of the household, especially small children. Where equipment is provided, the employer must ensure its initial safety, have a programme for appropriate maintenance and in the case of electrical equipment, for its periodic examination and portable appliance testing. There are no such duties where homeworkers use their own equipment. Electrical safety is extremely important and care must be taken not to overload socket points. Electrical hazards may also be controlled by providing circuit breakers.

Risks to homeworkers from display screen equipment are no different to their on-site counterparts. Employers are required to minimise the risks in VDU work by ensuring that workplaces and jobs are well designed regardless of where the work is carried out. It is feasible that in the first instance the VDU assessment may be undertaken by the homeworker and discussed with the DSE assessor – a home visit only being made if a problem has been identified.
Some homeworkers identify manual handling as one of the biggest problems they face. In certain instances other members of the family are called upon to provide assistance. Clearly manual handling (where possible) should be avoided, although if it is necessary then as a first step try to improve the workplace layout to increase efficiency and reduce carrying distances. Lifting aids should be provided by the employer and not left to employee innovation.

The COSHH assessment must give information on handling and use, safe storage, first aid, spill response and disposal. Employers have to protect both employees and others who may be exposed. Anyone in the household affected by headaches, sickness or skin rashes should trigger a review of controls. If anyone suffers from asthma, special care should be taken. Portable fume extractors may be necessary particularly for soldering work. PPE such as gloves and masks should be worn and windows opened during use to control exposure to the substance. PPE must be supplied free of charge and used wherever there are risks to health and safety that cannot be adequately controlled in other ways.

Often an area of the risk assessment which is overlooked is fire risk. Emergency arrangements in the event of a fire and the precautions to take must be considered. Some companies provide homeworkers with smoke alarms and portable fire extinguishers. Employers are also required to supply adequate first aid provision for their employees, depending on the nature of the work, risks and hazards.

There should also be regular face-to-face contact between company representatives and the homeworker to reduce the feeling of isolation and the possibility of stress and depression. Special efforts must be made to ensure homeworkers receive the same information and support as on-site workers, including information on social events. Consultation with all staff is required under H&S legislation. Some companies provide a dedicated health and safety information helpline and/or website available 24 hours a day to offer training and information.

Summary
The responsible employer must ensure that homeworkers are no more at risk from their work activities than any other employee. Work-related incidents can affect not just homeworkers, but others in the home including children and visitors. Companies are strongly advised to produce a policy on homeworking and ensure advice and information is disseminated to all affected staff. The prudent employer should also extend the provisions of this policy towards those staff who occasionally work at home during their usual working hours. It is imperative homeworkers have a primary point of contact for H&S issues and maintain close contact with their employer if they are not to become the ‘invisible group.'

Worker Injured in Fall

A Gloucester electrical products manufacturer has been fined for breaking safety legislation after a worker was injured in a fall at work.

In a prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive against Mekufa (UK) Ltd the court heard how the employee was dismantling a large dis-used oven, the flue of which extended into the ceiling space. Sections of the flue were being removed using a forklift cage to gain access. During the operation, the worker left the cage to get onto the roof of the oven. As the stack was being moved it toppled and knocked him 2.5 metres to the ground causing him to fracture his arm and suffer concussion.

The investigation by HSE found there was no documented plan or risk assessment for the task, which was unsupervised, or for any of the other removal works taking place. In addition, the employee operating the fork lift truck was not trained to do so. The company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,569.

Regulation 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 states that "Every employer shall ensure that work at height is (a) properly planned; (b) appropriately supervised; and (c) carried out in a manner which is so far as is reasonably practicable safe.” The fall could have easily been prevented if Mekufa (UK) Ltd had assessed the risks and put simple measures in place to minimise them. The prosecution is a stark reminder that if you expect your employees to work at height, you must ensure appropriate protection is provided to prevent them from falls. An appropriate plan should be developed and those undertaking the task should be appropriately supervised and competent.

Conveyor Blockage Injury

Scunthorpe Magistrates’ Court has heard how a Lincoln man had his arm severed when he tried to clear a blockage on a conveyor forming part of a metal sorting line

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which investigated, prosecuted City Scrap Ltd at after uncovering a catalogue of dangers at the site including:

• A failure to properly assess the hazards and risks to workers operating the line either when running steady or cleaning and clearing blockages

• No safe system of work

• No emergency stops on the metal sorting line and no stop controls

• Insufficient training amongst workers to enable them to safely clear blockages

• Failure to ensure fixed guarding was in place and working efficiently

City Scrap Ltd, of Dale Street, Lincoln, was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £8,964 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Whilst the case occurred in the waste scrap industry sector, which has traditionallysuffered a high incidence of injury, the failings identified by the HSE are indicative of those that often emerge following accidents involving contact with moving parts.

‘So far as is reasonably practicable’ explained

The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA) imposes a duty on employers to ensure, ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees.  The duty is one of strict liability which means if you have an accident at work, then you have failed to ensure their health, safety and welfare.  A similar duty extends to those who are not in your employ including visitors, contractors and members of the public. And remember, exposing someone to an uncontrolled risk even if it does not result in physical harm can still land you in the criminal courts! 

At this point you may be thinking there’s little chance of successfully defending a charge brought against me under the Act. Well think again. Whilst the law is firm, it is also fair and provides a defence in the words ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ (SFAIRP).

So what exactly does SFAIRP mean and more importantly how can you decide whether the risk control measures you have implemented are sufficient and compliant with the law?

To understand SFAIRP we must go back in time and consider the ruling made by the Court of Appeal in 1949 in the case of Edwards v National Coal Board. In this civil case, a miner (Edwards) was killed when a section of the road on which he was travelling subsided. The section of the road concerned had no timber supports, although other sections were properly supported. The Coal Board stated that the cost of supporting all roads was prohibitive in relation to the risk.

In reaching his decision the presiding judge, Lord Asquith, told the court that a balance had to be struck in deciding whether it would have been reasonably practicable to have taken the precaution of providing supports for the section of road which collapsed. He continued:

"... in every case, it is the risk that has to be weighed against the measures necessary to eliminate the risk. The greater the risk, no doubt, the less will be the weight to be given to the factor of cost."

In layman’s terms this means that the risk must be balanced against the 'sacrifice', whether in money, time or trouble, needed to avert or mitigate the risk. The greater the risk, the more time trouble and cost you will be expected to go to to bring it under control. It is about taking proportionate measures and only where the control measures are grossly disproportionate to the risk that the measures can be ruled out.

Have you done enough?
So what exactly does this mean in practice and how would the Regulator decide whether you are doing enough? The HSE itself admits “it can get very complicated… there is no simple formula for computing reasonably practicable”.  However, we are directed to a wealth of ‘good practice’ information including regulations, approved codes of practice and guidance notes that come to the rescue. The trick is to ensure you have access to this information and that the risk control measures are implemented. If you do, then following good practice will in most circumstances be sufficient to demonstrate that you have reduced the risks as low as is ‘reasonably practicable’.

A word of caution, however. Good practice can change over time, because of increased knowledge, technological innovation or because of changes in the tolerability of the level of risk control achieved by the existing good practice. So you must be alert to changes within your working environment and ensure they are introduced were necessary.

Ellis Whittam can of course help you stay alert to changes within your working environment and ensure that you have systems in place to adequately control your risks.

In Court: Unsafe Storage

Two matters brought before the criminal courts recently illustrate the need for companies to ensure the safe storage of materials. 

In the first, a worker at a textiles factory in Yorkshire suffered fatal injuries in Feb 2010 when an unstable stack of bales collapsed on him. The HSE found that the bales had been stacked in vertical columns which were inherently unstable. Describing the incident as “wholly avoidable” and drawing the court’s attention to the fact that there was a history of bales collapsing, the court imposed a fine against WE Rawson Ltd. under s2(1) of the HSWA 1974 of £100,000 and awarded full costs of £15,839.

In the second case, a paper manufacturer was fined £70,000 after an employee lost her life in March 2009 after a racking collapse. Merley Paper Converters pleaded guilty to a charge under s2(1) of the HSWA 1974 and was fined £70,000 plus £30,974 costs. The HSE inspectors found that the company had failed to fit locking pins along with 13 other defects. Had they had ensured it was put up correctly and properly maintained, the employee wouldn’t have been killed.

Both cases clearly demonstrate the importance of ensuring materials are stored safely and that racking and storage systems are properly maintained. A programme of periodic inspection at appropriate frequencies should be undertaken and incidents of unsafe conditions and behaviours reported.

HSE Reveals ‘Fee For Intervention’ Statistics

The first FFI bills, which were sent out to organisations found to be in material breach of the law, were sent out last week. The total sum invoiced for the two months from 1st October to 30th November 2012 was £727,000, which arose from 1419 FFI invoices. A tenth of the invoices are for values greater than £1000, 70% are for less than £500 - with approximately a third billing less than £200. A Freedom of Information (FOI) request, (reference HSW magazine), revealed the regulator recorded FFI time at 903 premises during the first two months of the cost recovery scheme’s operation.

Though the administration is in its early days, with inspectors still dealing with non-FFI cases that started before the scheme came into force, the figures seem low compared to the HSE’s projection that the first full year of operation (2013/14) would bring in £37 million. On the basis that it has invoiced for £727,000 (in two months), the revenue for a year would be approximately £4.3 million. It is far too early to draw conclusions on what the typical level of receipts from FFI will be as FFI is a new initiative.

Electric Shock

An agency worker suffered an electric shock while working in the kitchen of a restaurant in Warwickshire. Nuneaton Magistrates’ Court heard the incident took place in June last year. The agency worker suffered a severe electric shock when she removed a metal-rimmed bucket from under a waste-disposal unit.

The unit had been taken out of use as it continually suffered blockages, but it was not totally isolated from the mains. A live electrical cable was sticking out from the control box, and either the worker’s hand or the bucket came into contact with the wire. The worker fell to the floor and lost consciousness. She was found by a colleague who called an ambulance. The worker has been unable to return to work owing to sustained injuries.

One month earlier, the worker suffered a less severe shock from the unit when she tried to move the bucket. It had been reported to the employer but no remedial action was taken.

The District Council investigated the later incident and issued an Improvement Notice, which required the employer to carry out a proper inspection of the electrical equipment in the area. The employer appeared in court on 24th January and pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974 and reg.4(2) of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. They were fined a total of £15,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £6,675. In mitigation, the firm said it had no previous convictions and co-operated with the investigation. It subsequently enlisted a competent electrician to make the control box safe.

Teenager Burned on School Trip

A teenage girl has been left with lasting scarring after she was engulfed in fire while using a cooking appliance during a school camp trip. The 15-year-old girl was one of 25 girls on a three-day Duke of Edinburgh Silver Award camping trip. An expedition leader was in charge of the group, assisted by two teachers and a school administrator. A party of the trip was sitting in groups of three and four around several stoves, while food was being prepared for the evening meal. One of the girls wanted to cook some more food but thought the stove was going out. She picked up a five-litre container of methylated spirits and poured some on to the stove.

There was an instant flashover, with flames setting fire to one of the other girl’s clothes and headscarf. The expedition leader ran to the burning teenager and rolled her back and forth on the ground, while shouting for others to bring water and call the emergency services. The girl, who suffered severe burns to her hands, arms, face, neck and legs, spent three weeks recovering in the local hospital’s Special Burns Unit.

The HSE investigated the incident and found that some simple safety measures had not been taken. The risk assessment conducted in relation to the filling of the cooking stoves was not adequate. A five-litre container of methylated spirits should never have been used to fill a camping stove. Any fuel needed for the trip should have been taken in containers incorporating a safety cut-off valve and kept away from ignition sources. There also should have been a better procedure to follow when filling, or refilling the stove. A safer method would have been to take the stoves to the fuel rather than the other way around, as this would mean the stoves were cold. Alternatively, replacement burners could have been used to avoid refilling ones that had already been lit.

The Borough Council pleaded guilty to a breach of s3(1) of the HSAWA 1974. It was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay £17,246 in costs.

Councils and schools that organise camping trips involving the use of highly-flammable stove fuel must ensure they implement effective precautions to prevent the ignition of fuel, or vapour.

HSE Responds to Tip Off

A roofer has appeared in court after a member of the public called the HSE about unsafe work at height at a Merseyside property.

The roofer was contracted to re-tile the roof of a house. A member of the public contacted the HSE after witnessing three men working on the roof without any measures in place to prevent them from falling. 

An inspector from the HSE visited the site the same day and saw the three workers workers on the roof upon arrival. It was found that the scaffolding had been erected around the front of the house but there was nothing in place to prevent the men falling from the roof at the side or back of the property. The HSE inspector immediately issued a Prohibition Notice, which required work to stop until suitable measures were put in place to prevent falls.

The inspector said: “There were several ways this work could have been carried out safely, including fitting hand rails and toe boards around the edge of the roof to prevent people falling. The roofer put his own life and the lives of two other men at risk by allowing the work to go ahead without suitable safety measures in place. The scaffolding at the front of the building did nothing to prevent them falling off the side or back of the roof. I would like to thank the person who alerted us about the work as, if they hadn't, someone could have been seriously injured, or even killed.”

The roofer appeared in the Magistrates’ Court in Bootle on 13th December and pleaded guilty to breaching reg.6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. In mitigation, the roofer said he had no previous safety convictions and entered an early guilty plea. He complied with the enforcement notice by putting adequate scaffolding around the whole of the building.

In order to avoid this occurrence when conducting activities off site as well as on site, ensure that safe systems of work have been introduced – equipment correct for the task (in this case – correct edge control and fall arrest provision) – trained personnel – safe premises – safe methods of completing work; all risk assessments are in place.

Asbestos Survey

A plumbing company failed to take steps to prevent two workers being exposed to asbestos fibres during a refurbishment project at a number of flats in Aberystwyth.

The plumbing company was the principal contractor for the refurbishment of the flats in tower blocks in the town between November 2010 and February 2011. The company made no effort to obtain asbestos surveys, which had been carried out on the properties. It allowed a site manager and a sub-contractor to start the work without checking if asbestos was present.

In February last year, the HSE carried out a routine inspection at the site and found the work had begun without taking into account that asbestos might be present. Inspectors viewed the asbestos survey and learned that the substance was present. The workers had removed 82 metres of cement board, which the survey identified as being ‘presumed to contain asbestos’. The men broke up the board with a hammer and shovelled it into a wheelbarrow before putting it in a general waste skip. Identical work was planned for two other properties at the site, one of which had asbestos present in the soffits.

The HSE issued a Prohibition Notice to the firm, which ordered the work to stop until steps were put in place to protect workers from being exposed to asbestos. The survey must locate and identify all asbestos-containing material before any structural work begins and appropriate arrangements must be put in place to deal with any asbestos-containing materials that are uncovered.

The plumbing installation company appeared at Aberystwyth Magistrates’ Court on 10th December and pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay £38,30 in costs. The company’s failure to follow advice, guidance and their own procedures to identify the presence of asbestos and plan for its safe removal has needlessly created a serious long-term risk to workers’ health.

Worker Struck in the Head by Forklift

The serious head injuries a worker sustained when he was struck in the head by a moving fork on a forklift truck have forced him to retire.

The worker was due to retire two months from the incident but had intended to carry on working. At the time of the incident, the worker was attempting to remove a screw conveyor from a mezzanine platform, assisted by his supervisor. The workers weere contracted in to the premises by the owner. Owing to the restricted access to the platform, they devised a plan to attach a lifting sling around the conveyor, and then hook it on to the raised forks of a forklift truck. As the forks were raised, the right-hand fork became caught on the stop bracket of the platform’s gate. The supervisor was unaware that the fork was trapped and continued to raise the forks. The pressure caused the bracket to break, releasing the fork, which sprung upwards and struck the worker on the forehead. He suffered a double fracture to the skull, facial fractures and a fractured eye socket. He still suffers from headaches and memory loss and has been forced to retire owing to his injuries. 

The HSE investigated the incident and found the company had failed to further assess the lifting operation, which was required to remove the conveyor from the platform. The lift should have been planned by a competent person and the supervisor hadn’t been trained in this regard. The worker was also not trained in lifting and slinging operations. The company was issued two Improvement Notices, which required it to provide employees with adequate training for lifting and slinging, and training in how to plan a lifting operation. 

The owner of the premises was also served an Improvement Notice for failure to monitor or control contractors.

First Aid and the Changing World of Work

The world of first aid often seems to be full of contradictions. On one side, we have the comic image that is often seen on television programmes of the company first-aider, fussing and nagging colleagues with tips on health and safety; on the other side, we read horror stories in the media of persons getting sued after attempting to save the life of a colleague, or a stranger in need. The fact is that both cases are inaccurate, but these misconceptions can put people off volunteering as the office first-aider, or taking the steps to learn life-saving first-aid skills. 

It is generally argued that the priority of any business should be to minimise the risk of accidents happening in the first place, rather than getting their staff trained in first aid. But no amount of planning or education can guarantee that an accident will never occur. This is where first aid really can make the difference between a life lost and a life saved – by acting as a secondary safety net to minimise the impact of an accident, should it occur. 

In certain instances, the presence on site of a trained first-aider, who is able to unblock airways or carry out emergency resuscitation, is vital – e.g. work which largely takes place in remote locations, sometimes miles away from the nearest ambulance station, or hospital. An incident like choking or cardiac arrest, a person can only survive without oxygen for about four minutes. 

One of the biggest points of confusion for many workplaces is health and safety regulation and understanding where first aid fits in. The current regulatory landscape is undergoing major upheaval, driven, in large part, by Professor Löfstedt’s review of the UK’s health and safety system. 

From a first-aid perspective, there have already been some recommendations made as part of the review – although, for the time being, the HSE is keen to stress that the existing first-aid regulations remain unchanged. Once the recommendations are adopted, it is expected that the HSE will no longer ‘approve’ first-aid training organisations, although the Executive will continue to manage the standard for first aid against which all courses should be set. The aim of this change is to give employers greater flexibility in choosing a first-aid training supplier, so that they can make more appropriate choices based on the requirements of their workforce.

Many organisations tend to opt for the one-day Emergency First Aid at Work course, which covers core first-aid treatments and information, such as heart attacks and resuscitation, as well as need-to-know regulations. While this course provides good basic first-aid training, it doesn’t cover other common conditions, such as asthma, allergic reactions and low blood sugar, which are taught on the three-day First Aid at Work course.

It is not just legal requirements that are transforming the role of the first-aider; the treatments they have to administer in the workplace are also changing. While some people require first-aid treatment on account of injuries sustained in their working environment – for example, treating burns from spilt chemicals, or something as simple as bandaging a sprained ankle after tripping over a wire – there is also an increasing need for first-aiders to treat non work-related illnesses, such as heart attacks, or allergies.

The first-aider’s environment is always going to change, whether due to new laws, or simply new people joining the company. If mismanaged, finding, training and equipping a workplace first-aider can seem daunting, and the risk is that rather than tackle these challenges, businesses will simply go without – and that’s a risk no business can afford to take.

Garden Nursery Charged with Corporate Manslaughter

The Crown Prosecution Service has charged a garden nursery with corporate manslaughter in relation to the death of an employee two years ago.

An employer died on 15th July 2010 from an electric shock, caused when the metal hydraulic-lift trailer he was towing came into contact with an overhead power line.

The HSE investigated the incident on the same day and immediately served the company with two Prohibition Notices (PNs). The PNs related to: the operation of vehicles of a certain height from coming into contact with or closely approaching the overhead power lines in the field adjacent to the nursery buildings; and the movement of metal irrigation pipe work under the overhead lines without undertaking a suitable risk assessment and implementing a safe system of work.

At a further date, another Prohibition Notice was served to prevent the use of a trailer after the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) found that the brakes didn’t work. An Improvement Notice was also issued to the company to provide information, instruction and training for employees relating to transport and deliveries close to overhead power lines. The firm complied with all the notices.

This is the third company the CPS has charged with corporate manslaughter since the introduction of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act in 2008.

The company has worked closely with Police, the HSE and other agencies investigating the incident at the nursery.

Lack of Health & Safety Training Led to Injury on First Day

A worker suffered life-threatening injuries during his first day on the job, when he fell from the top of a tipper lorry.

Two migrant workers who hardly spoke English were training a 40-year-old man, who was on his first day of work. The training did not include any health and safety training. The new recruit began loading waste into a tipper lorry so it could be transferred to another site. The waste was piled too high, so the auto-sheeting device jammed when attempting to cover the load. The worker climbed on top of the tipper unit and manually released the jam, which caused the sheet system to spring back and strike him. He fell three metres to the ground and suffered two broken ribs, a punctured lung, and developed a blood clot in his head. He was unconscious in hospital for two weeks and has only recently been able to return to work.

The HSE investigated the incident and found the company had procedures in place that prohibited workers from climbing up trucks. They also required staff to use a gantry at the site, which was fitted with harnesses, to access the top of vehicles. But the procedures were not communicated to the new worker and there was a failure to supervise the job. There were also no systems in place to ensure vehicles and pedestrians were segregated in the yard.

The company appeared in court on 24th October and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974 in relation to the incident. It also admitted breaching reg.7(1)(b) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005, for not ensuring workers could easily exit the shed, and reg.17(1) of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, for failing to ensure vehicles were safely organised in the yard.

In mitigation, the firm said it cooperated with the investigation and had no previous convictions. It also claimed the company was no longer trading.

HSE Introduces Charges from 1st October

Fee For Intervention (FFI), the HSE’s much-publicised cost-recovery scheme, comes into effect from 1st October 2012.

Under the Health and Safety (Fees) Regulations 2012, the HSE has a duty to charge employers who break the law for the costs associated with the regulator’s related inspection, investigation and enforcement activities. 

The Regulations are designed to shift the cost of health and safety enforcement from the public purse to businesses that contravene health and safety laws. Under FFI, when an HSE inspector visits a business and identifies a ‘material breach’ of health and safety law, the business will have to pay a fee based on a rate of £124 per hour.

The fee will be applied to each intervention where a material breach is identified and any other associated work. Where the material breach is identified during a visit, costs for the whole visit are recoverable, from as soon as the HSE inspector enters the site to when they leave. The fee will also cover all work to ensure that the breach is remedied, as well as any investigation or enforcement action up to the point where the HSE’s intervention has been concluded, or prosecution proceedings begin.

A ‘material breach’ is defined as a contravention of health and safety law that requires an inspector to issue a written notice to the duty-holder. This may be notification of a contravention, an Improvement or Prohibition Notice, or a prosecution, and must include the law that the inspector’s opinion relates to:
• the reasons for their opinion
• and notification that a fee is payable to the HSE

Businesses in compliance with their legal obligations will not have to pay according to the HSE, which hopes that FFI will act as a further incentive for duty-holders to operate within the law and help level the playing field between compliant and non-compliant companies.

Following a draft publication issued in the summer, the HSE has now published a full downloadable guide to the FFI scheme on its website here.

Details on what the Executive identifies as the most basic safety mistakes in the workplace can also be viewed here.

Depression

According to a new Mori survey (on behalf of the European Depression Association), workers in Britain are more likely than their European counterparts to be diagnosed with depression at some point in their life.

The survey questioned more than 7000 people in seven European countries. It found that a fifth of those who responded were diagnosed with depression at some point in their lives, with Britain recording the highest rate (26%). 

One in 10 working people surveyed said they have taken time off work because of the illness, with an average of 36 days lost per episode of depression.

Despite these high rates of absenteeism, one in four of those who had experienced depression said they did not tell their employer about their condition. A third of this group admitted they felt it would jeopardise their job in the current economic climate.

Managers surveyed said they wanted more help at a practical and legislative level to deal with the problem. Nearly one in three managers reported a lack of formal support or resources to handle employees who have depression, and 43% called for better policies and legislation to protect employees. HR was the most likely source of support for managers in Britain (55%).

It is often argued that organisations need to carry out more well-being/stress audits, using well-researched and robust psychometrics in order to collect data from employees about how they perceive their particular workplace and organisation. The organisation then needs to take action based on the findings of the report - which sounds obvious but is too often forgotten - and work with employees to identify the solutions to the particular issues that emerge.

Construction Firm Fined Following Death of Worker

A building firm has been ordered to pay £548,000 in fines and costs after a man fell through a roof while working on the construction of a shopping centre in North Wales.

On 29th May 2007, a roofer working for the contractor was fitting a rubber membrane to a flat concrete roof when he fell nearly six metres through an unguarded opening in the roof to the floor below, sustaining serious head injuries. 
The worker spent several months in hospital and was making a gradual recovery. However, the brain injury he suffered exposed him to a much higher degree of infection and, after contracting acute meningitis, he died on 17th December 2009.

Poor coordination between the principal and the roofing contractors on this particular part of the site led to the edge protection being removed from around the roof opening without alternative safeguards in place. Falls from height are a common cause of death and serious injury in construction. All too often, straightforward practical precautions are not considered and workers are put needlessly at risk. 

The principle contractor appeared in court 4th October and was found guilty of breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined £450,000 and ordered to pay £98,000 in costs.

In mitigation, the firm said it takes health and safety seriously but accepts failings took place in relation to this incident. Following the incident, it modified its procedures to ensure that work is safely handed over to contractors.

Builder Jailed

A builder charged with the manslaughter of a three-year-old child, who was fatally crushed when a wall collapsed, has been imprisoned for two years. 

The child was killed when a wall designed by George Collier and constructed by his company, Parcol Developments Ltd, collapsed on to a public footpath in the Welsh coastal resort of Prestatyn, where she was walking with her mother, on 26th July 2008. The wall failed after pressure from infill, the court heard.

The three-week trial of Mr Collier, concluded on 5th October after a jury at Mold Crown Court found him guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence. Parcol Developments, based in Conwy, previously pleaded guilty on 7th December 2011 to a breach of section 3(1) of the HSWA 1974. No additional fine or costs were awarded against the company because it has ceased trading and has no funds.

The jury has found Mr Collier guilty of gross-negligence manslaughter and his conviction should act not only as a reminder of the dangers of sub-standard building work but also of the consequences for those who carry it out.

Given Mr Collier’s direct role in the incident, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided in August last year that he should be charged with gross-negligence manslaughter.

CDM to be Rewritten in 2014

The Health and Safety Executive has announced it will be re-drafting the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations for reissue in 2014. A representative from the regulator confirmed the plans at an event held by the Association for Project Safety in May.

Details will be presented to the HSE board in December. However, the Executive indicated that the new Regulations are likely to be based more closely on the requirements of the EU Temporary or Mobile Construction Sites Directive.

The Löfstedt report recommended that an ongoing review of CDM 2007 should consider a clearer expression of duties, a reduction in bureaucracy and suitable guidance for small projects.

Although it can be argued that many aspects of CDM work very well, such as the technical standards required during construction work, other aspects continue to cause concern for the industry, including co-ordination of health and safety prior to construction work starting. The regulator is looking at how these concerns can be addressed, so CDM is focused on maintaining and improving health and safety standards for construction workers across the industry.

Third Corporate Manslaughter Conviction

A Manchester storage-products manufacturer has been sentenced after becoming the third company in the UK to be convicted under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.

The company, based in Hyde, Greater Manchester was ordered to pay a fine of £480,000 in relation to the death of a worker in 2008. The worker fell through a fragile roof light at the company’s Hyde premises after he had gone to check the source of a leak.

Judge Gilbart QC, sentencing at Manchester Crown Court, ordered the company to pay the fine in four instalments: £100,000 by the end of September this year; a further £150,000 by end-September 2013; the same amount again by end-September 2014; and the final £80,000 by end of September 2015. It was also ordered to pay a contribution of £84,000 towards the Crown Prosecution Service’s costs.

The company had pleaded guilty earlier this month to corporate manslaughter following the death of the 45-year-old employee on 29th May 2008.

Originally, the CPS had also brought charges under sections 2 and 33 of the HSWA 1974 against the company, as well as charges of gross-negligence manslaughter and breaches of section 37 HSWA 1974 against three of the firm’s directors.

Manchester Crown Court heard that the day before the incident the worker, who was a general ‘odd-job’ employee at the company, was carrying out renovations and internal decoration work in the kitchen at the company’s Hyde premises. He noticed that water was dripping from the roof but did not go up on to the roof to investigate the source until the following day.  When heading back along the roof to the door through which he had accessed it, it is thought he took a short cut over the roof’s apex and fell through a skylight, landing 13 metres on the floor below and suffering fatal injuries.

The prosecution argued that the company had not put in place any suitable arrangements for working on the roof, nor had it trained the worker in roof work, nor provided him with any protective equipment for such work.

It also sought to establish a duty of care for the three senior managers through the managerial offices they held and relied on information from various surveys carried out by the company’s insurers to establish that the three managers had knowledge that safety procedures and precautions were not as they should be.

When setting the fine, the judge took the company’s guilty plea into account and duly reduced the amount by 20 per cent – suggesting that the fine would otherwise have been in excess of £600,000. He said he was also mindful of the fact that the company employed 142 people and did not wish for jobs to be lost as a consequence of their colleague’s death.

The judge criticised the length of time it took to bring the prosecution (four years). He also said the CPS should have given more consideration to the test to be passed in order to prove corporate manslaughter.

Mishandling of a Resident who Killed Worker

An NHS Trust and the owner of a Dunstable care home have been sentenced after being found guilty of safety failings following the fatal stabbing of a care worker.

On 24th August 2007, a care worker was killed by a resident at Abacus House, in Princes Street. The resident, who suffers from bipolar disorder, became agitated and stabbed the care worker twice in the chest with a knife from the kitchen. A fellow care worker was also attacked as she tried to help her colleague. She sustained minor injuries.

A joint investigation launched by the HSE, Central Bedfordshire Council and the Police found that Abacus House was not a suitable care facility for the resident, who had been placed there by the Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. The resident had a history of low-level violence, and staff at the home had no expertise and received no training in how to handle people with his disorder, or for managing violent behaviour. The home was mainly equipped to care for patients who suffered from acquired brain injuries.

At a sentencing hearing on 19th July, Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust was fined £150,000, along with costs of £326,346, for breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. It had previously been found guilty at Luton Crown Court on 28th June, following an eight-week trial.

The Council also prosecuted the owner of Abacus House. The investigation found that he had failed to identify the risks posed by the resident, who needed to be housed in a more suitable facility. At the same June hearing, the owner was found guilty of breaching sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the 1974 Act and was fined £75,000 and ordered to pay costs to the Council of £338,996.

The judge told the owner he had not been candid when the Trust inquired as to whether the home could cater for someone with the resident’s condition, and allowed “financial gain to guide him rather than a prudent approach to issues of safety”. The home was not competent to care for the resident concluded the judge. The home has since closed.

Asbestos Survey - Need for Specialist

Colchester Zoo has been fined £35,000 after admitting 12 health and safety breaches during work to remove asbestos containing materials at its hay barn in 2011.

Colchester Borough Council prosecuted the zoo after discovering it had removed asbestos insulating board, and asbestos cement guttering and downpipes, without adequate measures in place to prevent exposure to potentially deadly fibres.

An asbestos management survey produced by a qualified company - in compliance with an Improvement Notice the council had served on the zoo in November 2010 - had identified the need to remove the asbestos in the barn, but not the need for a specialist contractor. The zoo also failed to follow the HSE’s Approved Code of Practice L143 or any other guidance documents, such as Asbestos Essentials.

In June, the zoo’s director, on behalf of his company, pleaded guilty to 10 breaches of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. These included failing to carry out a suitable risk assessment, not having a proper written plan of work, and failing to dispose of and label asbestos waste properly.

The zoo also carried out the work without the necessary licence and did not provide employees with adequate information, instruction and training.

In mitigation, the defence argued that the survey report received by the zoo had not made it clear that it should have called in a specialist contractor to handle the materials involved.

The council’s investigation also found that during the removal work, untrained staff had operated a personnel cage attached to a JCB hydraulic lift truck to allow people to work at height.

Colchester Zoo was fined a total of £20,000 for the 10 asbestos offences at Chelmsford Crown Court. They were also fined £5,000 after it admitted not training staff to use equipment properly, contrary to Regulation 9 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations, and £10,000 for breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act by failing to ensure employees’ safety. The zoo must also pay full prosecution costs of £3,398.

Workplace Deaths Statistics

The HSE has released figures in July revealing how many work-related deaths occurred in the UK last year.

The provisional data for the period April 2011 to March 2012 show that 173 workers were fatally injured – two fewer than the previous year’s confirmed total of 175. The rate of fatal injury remains the same, at 0.6 per 100,000 workers.

The construction industry recorded the most deaths, with 49. This is down from 50 last year, and below the five-year average of 59. It represents a fatal-injury rate of 2.3 per 100,000.

In the agriculture sector, 33 people lost their lives – three more than in 2010/11, and just below the five-year average of 35. This equates to a fatal injury rate of to 9.7 per 100,000 last year.

Emphasising that the UK continues to have one of the lowest levels of workplace fatal injury in Europe, HSE chair Judith Hackitt acknowledged that “Every single one of these deaths will have caused terrible grief and anguish for family and friends, as well as workmates and colleagues”. 

She called on employers to continue to focus on “real risks”, saying the regulator is “working very hard to make it easier for people to understand what they need to do and to focus on the real priorities”.

October Start For HSE Cost-Recovery Confirmed

The HSE’s cost-recovery scheme, known as Fee for Intervention (FFI), will begin on 1st October, subject to Parliamentary approval, the regulator has announced.

As well as confirming the start date for the scheme, the HSE has also published initial guidance explaining how the scheme will work in practice, along with examples illustrating how it will be applied.

Lone Workers in the Retail Sector

Robbery in the retail sector costs the UK millions of pounds every year and, in many cases, the only thing standing between the person behind the robbery and their objective is a lone shop assistant, or storeperson. It is crucial that such workers are provided with the best possible protection, including the means to summon help and assistance quickly and effectively.

The words ‘lone worker’ when mentioned to most people, immediately conjure images of a district nurse or a long-distance lorry driver. Rarely will they come up with retail workers but, as the largest private-sector employer in the UK, retail has hundreds of thousands of lone workers, either on a full or part-time basis. Think of the staff that open and close stores, go on banking runs, conduct warehouse operations, or those involved in distribution/delivery networks. 

Figures for 2011 from the British Retail Consortium (BRC) show there are approximately 285,000 retail outlets in the UK. Over the last decade, store formats have changed considerably in line with how we consume – we now demand greater convenience, speed and choice in relation to the products we buy. This has helped shape the appearance of an increasing number of smaller-format stores, often with lower numbers of staff and longer opening hours, which, in turn, have an impact on how retail organisations meet their duty of care to employees. 

According to the BRC’s Retail Crime Survey 2011 different roles generally result in different risk profiles; however, verbal abuse and robbery remain the biggest concerns.

Agency Worker Suffers Electric Shock at Children’s Play Area

A council-owned company failed to warn an agency worker about the presence of underground power cables before he installed a fence at a play area in Swindon.

The service company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Swindon Borough Council, was contracted to install a temporary fence at the play park as part of a renovation project. 

On 23rd April 2010, an agency worker, who had worked for the company for a number of years, began hitting metal road pins into soft ground in order to secure the temporary fencing. One of the pins he was holding made contact with an 11,000-volt underground electric cable, which was 700mm below the surface, and he suffered burns to his hands and chest.

The HSE’s investigation discovered he hadn’t been given any warning that underground cables were present, and was not provided with avoidance tools to locate and mark underground services.

The HSE inspector explained the company had failed to carry out a risk assessment before starting the work. He said: “This was an incident that could have easily been avoided, had the company undertaken the correct planning procedures and provided the right equipment to ensure that they knew the location of any underground utility services, before allowing workers to penetrate the ground with metal equipment.”

The service company appeared at Swindon Magistrates’ Court on 2nd July and pleaded guilty to breaching s34(3) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007, for failing to take steps to prevent the disturbance of underground services. It was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £4,403 in costs.

In mitigation, the company said this was an isolated incident and it had fully cooperated with the investigation. It has subsequently created a code of practice for ground intrusion work and workers have received training in scanning for underground cables.

Council Admits Safety Failings Following Death

A pensioner was killed when a reversing bin lorry struck his mobility scooter and dragged him more than eight metres down a road.

Nottingham Crown Court heard that the man was returning home from the shops when the vehicle struck him on 10th July 2008. The Council was collecting rubbish as it had missed a bin collection during routine rounds.

The vehicle was manned by just a single worker, and as it reversed it collided with the man, who was driving his mobility scooter along the road. The bin lorry continued to reverse and the pensioner, who was trapped underneath the scooter, was dragged eight metres by the truck until the driver noticed shopping spilling into the road. The man was taken to hospital and died a few hours later owing to crush injuries.

On 28th November 2008, the HSE issued an Improvement Notice to the council to review its risk assessment to minimise the risk to staff and members of the public during collections.

The HSE inspector said the incident could have been avoided if another member of staff had accompanied the driver to act as his reversing assistant. He said: “If the council had staffed the refuse-collection lorry appropriately, then the man would probably still be alive today. Very large vehicles such as this have a number of blind spots and it was impractical to expect a lone driver to reverse safely without the aid of a colleague walking behind to check the path was clear. These Lorries are fitted with flashing lights and a reversing warning system but the council needed to take into consideration that the system was not adequate, and another worker should have been present and could have prevented this needless loss of life.”

The Council appeared in court on 3rd July and pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined £25,000 and ordered to pay £12,987 in costs.

In mitigation, the council said it had complied with the Improvement Notice and now ensures that more than one member of staff mans full-size waste-collection vehicles.

After the hearing a spokesperson for the council said: “The court accepted the council was well organised and motivated in its health and safety management and that the issue, which contributed to the accident, was the single weak link in an otherwise comprehensive system. The court also stated that the council's culpability was very low.”

HSE Proposed Charges

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) will soon have an extended power to charge businesses for intervention time, on and offsite, where there has been a material breach of health and safety legislation (see our March 2012 briefing). This would be the result of the proposed extension to its cost recovery scheme, due to be introduced in autumn 2012 (extended from spring 2012).

In practice this means that from this time, businesses currently subject to formal improvement action (e.g. email, letter, improvement notice or prohibition notice), will now be charged for the time and resources incurred from the point of discovery of a ‘material breach’ of legislation. The clock will continue to tick up until the time the breach has either been resolved to HSE’s satisfaction or information is laid for a prosecution, when the recovery of further costs will be sought through the courts.

What constitutes a material breach hasn’t been defined, but it is expected to cover all but technical incursions, i.e. where there is no increased risk of harm. It could be suggested that this mirrors ‘the polluter pays principle’ in the environmental field, whilst adding an extra level of deterrent to those who would otherwise fail to meet their legal obligations.

The HSE is proposing that fees will be levied at £133 per hour and will apply to all activity undertaken from the moment a breach is discovered, including site visits, telephone calls, drafting reports and issuing notices. It estimates that the average cost for an inspection resulting in a letter to be £750 (£1,500 for one resulting in an Enforcement Notice), and a minimum of £750 for a full investigation. However, experience has shown that investigations can run into thousands of pounds in all but the simplest of cases as specialist Inspectors become involved in addition to the local Inspector. The Government estimates that, in total, this will generate £60 million per annum in revenue.

Prevention is obviously better than cure, and the onus remains on the business to prevent a material or technical breach of the legislation from occurring in the first place by implementing a robust health and safety risk management programme. For clients with developed health and safety programmes, Ellis Whittam is currently delivering legal compliance assessments - general risk assessments - in order to provide support and to improve the robustness of the clients’ monitoring tools and records in order to demonstrate compliance.

Roofer Filmed In Power Tool Repair Job

The director of a roofing firm has been prosecuted for dangerous work-at-height practices after being caught on camera using a power tool while balancing on the ridge of a roof at a domestic property.

Ipswich Magistrates’ Court heard the HSE received a complaint from a member of the public in July last year that unsafe work was being carried out on the roof of a house in Suffolk. Workers had been spotted carrying out roof repairs without any measures to protect them from falling.

The HSE viewed video footage filmed by the same member of public, which showed the company director using a petrol-powered disc cutter to cut through a tile while he and an employee worked on the roof without any edge protection, or safe working platform in place. The video also showed the director and his employee using an unsuitable ladder to access the roof and then clambering up and down the tiles to access the ridge of the roof.

The HSE inspector explained that the director had put himself and his employee’s life at risk by not ensuring suitable safety equipment was present: “He should have led by example, but instead had put his own life and the life of an employee at risk. Fortunately, no one was injured on this occasion, but it is astonishing that the director thought it was acceptable to use a potentially dangerous piece of machinery while perched at the top of the roof.”

The director appeared in court on 29th May and pleaded guilty to breaching reg.6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. He was fined £1500 and ordered to pay £3000 towards prosecution costs.

Asda Guilty Of Serious Fire Safety Breaches

National food retailer Asda Stores Limited has been ordered to pay more than £55,000 in fines and costs for committing serious fire-safety breaches at a store in Berkshire.

Appearing at Reading Crown Court on 6th June, the firm pleaded guilty to two charges brought under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. The case had received an earlier hearing in February at Reading Magistrates’ Court, but was referred to the Crown Court, where a number of further charges were brought into account.

Royal Berkshire Fire Authority (RBFA) brought the charges following an inspection of Asda’s store, near Slough, by fire safety officers on 24th June 2010. The court heard that the breaches presented a serious and life-threatening risk, not only to the staff who worked in the store but also to customers and other members of the public.

The inspection, which was carried out following a complaint, identified serious breaches to fire-safety regulations, including:
• two fire exit doors chained and locked shut;
• obstruction of fire escape routes;
• combustible items obstructing fire-exit doors and escape routes; and
• fire exit doors wedged open.

The company was fined £20,000 for each offence, with full costs totalling £15,647 awarded to the Fire Authority.

Worker Killed While Moving Delivery

A family-run catering business has been fined £60,000 after a worker was killed when a number of tables he was moving collapsed on him.

The worker had worked for the company for more than 40 years and his brother-in-law was the company’s managing director. In addition to providing catering services the company hired out folding tables. On 21st July 2009 a driver, who was employed by one of the firm’s customers, was returning 25 tables to the catering company’s headquarters, in south-west London.

The driver was told to load the tables into metal caddies and move them over to a warehouse on the site. The caddies each had three closed sides and an open side, which should have featured safety straps to hold loads in place. The driver selected three caddies but only one of them had safety straps. He then stacked the tables on the caddies and moved them over to the warehouse.

The worker was moving the delivery inside the building when the tables on one of the strapless caddies overturned and fell on him, causing him to fall backwards and strike his head on the ground. He suffered serious head injuries and died in hospital two days later.

A number of safety failings were identified and it was also found that the tables had been stacked incorrectly, as they were facing the open side, rather than being stacked at a right-angle to it. The council issued a Prohibition Notice, which required the company to stop using the caddies until a safe system of work was put in place.

Defective caddies should have been tagged or isolated and there was no effective system in place to ensure that only caddies with straps were used.

The Company appeared at Kingston-upon-Thames Crown Court on 25th May and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) and s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined a total of £60,000 and ordered to pay £9.950 in costs.

Here Comes the Sun...Protecting your Employees from the British Weather

“Ladies and gentlemen of the class of ’97 - wear sunscreen. If I could offer you only one tip for the future, sunscreen would be it.”  Baz Luhrmann, Australian film director.

Long hot summers like those of 1976 and 2003 haven’t been a feature of the British climate recently – and even our record temperature of 100.2F in 2003 isn’t really that intense when compared to the places many of us spend our holidays. However, working in such temperatures can bring some challenges, and a few simple actions can help to avoid problems.

In hot areas, breaks are taken in the hottest part of the day. We don’t have a siesta tradition in the UK, but we can plan workloads to make sure exposure in the hottest part of the day is reduced – so if any heavy manual tasks are needed, do these either first thing or at the end of the day. When you do get the opportunity for a break, make sure it’s out of the sun and you get a chance to cool down.

Driving through Death Valley on holiday one year I was surprised to be stopped at road works where the stop/go sign was being operated by a worker completely covered from head to toe, from a floppy hat to a scarf round his face. This may be extreme, but there was a guy who wasn’t getting sunburn! Hats and a decent pair of sunglasses, preferably wraparound, will protect you from the sun’s UV radiation. Dark clothing will protect you better than light and natural fabrics are a must to avoid sweat rashes and discomfort. Gore-tex or similar technical fabrics will be even more effective.

Drink lots, but make sure you’re drinking the right things. Working hard in high temperatures means you’ll get dehydrated quickly. Make sure you stay topped up, drink before you are thirsty, and avoid coffee, tea or sugary drinks – and definitely give alcohol a miss. Water and sports drinks are best, water is usually cheaper and more effective.

Be careful around summer plants – nettles and thistles  are obvious but other plants like ivies, giant hogweed and many lilies contain sap which can be a real irritant to those susceptible – and a decent summer can mean these become a real hazard

And now for that sunscreen! You need something that will block UVA and UVB rays, and at least SPF 15. The SPF number is a great guide – it refers to the amount of time you’ll be protected from UVB – so with SPF 15 you can stay outside for 15 times longer than without sunscreen. Make sure you’re also protected from UVA rays by buying a broad spectrum sunscreen with ingredients to block UVA. Look for titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, or avobenzone on the label.

Re-slather yourself every couple of hours, as humidity and sweat affects efficiency. Anything older than a couple of years needs throwing out, as performance decreases with age.

Be a good colleague and keep an eye on your mates – maybe they aren’t as heat-savvy as you, and prefer shorts and a T-shirt to sensible summer garb. Share out the sunscreen and make sure everyone gets plenty of water – they will thank you for it.

Reigning on Your Parade?

The Queen’s Diamond Jubilee is upon us, and at EW we’ve been dealing with queries from clients who are organising fetes, bazaars, street parties, cheese rolling and assorted other traditional British ways of celebrating national events. Apart from the weather (can’t help with that I’m afraid) there are a few simple things you can do to make sure your event, be it an office party or a full-on public knees-up, goes swimmingly.

Firstly, think about the basics – how many people are likely to turn up, where are they going to park and where are the nearest toilet facilities? If you’re expecting families, the last thing you need is hyperactive kids running in and out of inappropriate parking areas, and providing adequate toilets and baby changing areas will prevent long queues and accidents!

If your event is substantial, you’ll need to let your local council know – they may be able to help with street closures, barriers and advice on security. If you’re selling alcohol, food or employing people you’ll definitely need some advice from them.

From a health and safety perspective, the last thing anyone wants to do is stop events happening - so have a think about any risks that may exist, but make sure you also take a common sense approach too. For example, tie some spare bunting to tent guy ropes and make sure you’ve completed a risk assessment and introduced a suitable control to prevent anyone tripping over them!

If you are hiring anything – from bouncy castles to generators – make sure any safety equipment and instructions required are provided and that you get proper training. Any reputable hire firm will sort this for you as a matter of course. And don’t let anyone mess about with the hired item once you’ve set it up – enthusiastic amateur helpers can be a liability!

After your event, think about the clean up – how are you going to dispose of waste, who is going to do it and what equipment do they need? Designate some willing helpers before the event, or you may find it’s left for you to clean up.

Remember, if you are an EW client you can get advice on all health and safety matters from your EW consultant, or via our helpline - 0845 226 8393.  We’ll always try to give you practical and pragmatic advice. Have a great, safe, celebration.

Safety Leadership

“Management is doing things right, leadership is doing the right things.”  Peter Drucker

OK, so you’re busy running your business. You have a million and one demands on your time and everyone wants a piece of you. How about health and safety? Is that on your radar? Thought not.

Decision makers in any organisation need to ensure sensible and pragmatic health and safety management is part of their everyday activities. Here are some pointers, based on the Health and Safety Executive’s four-point agenda for leading on health and safety:

Plan – Set the direction for safety, just as you do with everything else you control. Your health and safety policies and systems are your vision statement, setting your culture, values and performance standards. Make sure you know what risks your organisation faces, and how these will be managed. Nominate a Board member or senior person to champion health and safety and give them the resources to make a difference. Always have health and safety as a standing agenda item in Board and management meetings, and have open and frank discussions – if an area is poor, don’t apportion blame, use the time to make it better.

Deliver – You need an effective health and safety system to protect everyone who may be affected by your activities. This doesn’t mean going overboard with the black and yellow tape, what we’re looking for is sensible and reasonable practices.

• Always obtain competent advice – you’d never trust your numbers to an incompetent fly-by-night accountant, why trust your people’s wellbeing to just anyone? Make sure your health and safety advisor is qualified and has access to a good support network.
• Many organisations have a great set of risk assessments, on a shelf, gathering dust. What’s the point? Risk assessments need to be dynamic and above all, used by the people they are meant to protect – not kept pristine in the manager’s office. Involve the people doing the job, and you’ll get engagement and fewer accidents – don’t introduce new processes without consulting with your workers. You don’t necessarily need a formal health and safety committee, just make sure you have communication arrangements in place.
• When did you last do a safety walkabout? Every couple of weeks, walk round your premises and wear your ‘safety head’ – every time, you’ll notice things that need attention. While you are walking the walk, dish out some compliments to those people who are working safely – and make sure that you address any unsafe actions immediately – never condone them by ignoring them.
• Many Directors like to give the impression that they know everything that’s happening in their business. Do a day’s Directing Safely course, and find out what you don’t know – better still run a course for the whole Board and senior team.
• Maybe ask your suppliers/contractors what they are doing to promote health and safety – do their delivery drivers act properly on your site? Can you work together to save resources by running joint training sessions? Great health and safety isn’t expensive, poor management of safety matters can ruin your reputation and your business.

Monitor – If you don’t measure it you can’t manage it. ‘Nuff said. Does the Board know how well (or badly) the organisation performs in terms of health and safety? Are resource allocations based on prioritised need, extracted from performance data? It’s absolutely useless to use accident data as your main indicator, use it as part of a suite of information, including proactive measures like the amount of training completed, risk assessments reviewed etc. How would your managers react to having the health and safety performance of their teams linked to their appraisals and performance reviews? Or maybe even to their bonuses? There’s a real driver of delivery.

Review – A formal Board review of health and safety performance is essential. Is your system effective and adding value? Does the policy reflect reality, or does it need updating? Many organisations are so proud of their performance that they include health and safety matters in their annual reports. Every accident you prevent saves an average of £600 of direct and indirect costs to the bottom line – the more serious the accident, the more it’ll cost. Make sure you celebrate success - do you reward your people for great safety performance?
 

So – there’s a few points to ponder. Above all, “safety’s nothing special”. Manage health and safety in the same professional manner you manage all the other things you have to do and you won’t go far wrong. Do the right things, and keep your people from harm.

Got it wrong? It’s going to hurt....

The Health & Safety Executive’s new cost-recovery scheme, known as ‘Fees for Intervention’ (FFI) begins next month. If an Inspector finds a contravention of health and safety requirements when visiting your premises, he or she will start charging you for the time they spend dealing with the problem – at £124 per hour.

Speaking at the IOSH Conference in Manchester, Geoffrey Podger, Chief Executive of HSE, described the forthcoming charges as "a good way to provide us with more resources". It’s clear the Government sees the charge as a way of raising much-needed funds, whilst attempting to hit those companies who aren’t complying with a real impact on their bottom line. And the money raised is going to be considerable - around 1,000 prosecutions and 15,000 enforcement notices are handled by HSE every year.

Even the TUC gave tacit approval of the charge, recognising that whilst "the State should be paying for enforcement" it was important to maintain inspections and enforcement despite the current budgetary constraints on the regulator. The charge is seen as a way of supporting good health and safety performance – “only those at material fault have anything to fear."

So, how does your organisation avoid being hit by potentially thousands of pounds in HSE charges for getting it wrong? The obvious answer is ‘get it right’ but that’s easy to say. From an adviser’s perspective, good management of health and safety continues to be critical aspect of running your business. A good set of documents, forming the foundation of your management system and a prioritised, dynamic Action Plan detailing your Health & Safety Strategy is the start of the process. Ongoing interventions, identifying problems via regular audits and inspections will maintain progress.

HSE will be looking for contraventions, but where good management exists, and a willingness to rectify faults is combined with clear engagement in health and safety matters throughout the organisation, such issues can be quickly addressed. Remember, your Ellis Whittam Consultant is always available to advise you should you need help.

In conclusion, it’s going to be interesting to see how FFI works, and what impact it has. Maybe it’s the start of a trend – will we see policemen charging burglars for arresting them and bringing them to book? Ker-ching.......!!

Health & Safety for Women

Although many health and safety issues affect everyone, women, especially when pregnant or undergoing the menopause, are more susceptible, for physiological reasons, to certain hazards than men. It is essential that health and safety therefore should be gender sensitive.

New and Expectant Mothers

Pregnant women, mothers who are breastfeeding, who have given birth in the last six months and women who have miscarried after 24 weeks of pregnancy are covered by specific health and safety requirements, in addition to the general requirements applicable to everyone.
When notified that a woman is pregnant, and where the work she carries out may harm her or her baby, her employer must:

• assess the risks to her health and safety when carrying out her work
• seek to eliminate or reduce those risks.

If a particular risk cannot be eliminated, suitable alternative working arrangements (e.g. transfer to another role, removal of the risky parts of her job etc.) must be considered.  If this is not possible, and as a last resort, the woman must be suspended on her normal pay for as long as necessary.

The risk assessment must be reviewed throughout the pregnancy, as the possibility of harm to the foetus will vary at different stages and must also be reviewed following return to work.

Here are some common risks pregnant women may encounter at work: 

• Manual handling and bending hazards, as pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to back injury
• Some infectious diseases, if contracted by a pregnant woman, can pose a danger to the unborn baby. These include rubella, chickenpox and several less common diseases associated with particular jobs, eg. animal handling.
• Display screen equipment has, in the past been linked to problems during pregnancy – there is no evidence of any direct link, but the need to adopt good posture and take regular breaks from screen work is especially important for pregnant women.
• Providing comfortable and quiet rest facilities where expectant mothers can lie down and rest occasionally will often make a huge difference to their work performance and may be instrumental in improving attendance at work during pregnancy.
• Violence at work is bad enough at any time, but when a pregnant woman is the victim, the consequences can be horrendous. Ensure workers who deal with the public are properly protected and that support from less vulnerable colleagues is available.

Working During the Menopause

The number of older women in the workplace continues to increase, as retirement ages are amended. Menopause – often called ‘the change of life’ – is directly linked with workplace health, safety and well-being.  Many women experience problems around this time, which can be exacerbated by working conditions.

Menopause is not an illness, but changes in oestrogen levels can result in intermittent symptoms around this time including ‘hot flushes’, sweating, increased susceptibility to anxiety, fatigue and stress and sometimes short-term memory problems.

Poor ventilation and high working temperatures can aggravate common menopausal symptoms such as hot flushes and sweating, affecting comfort and health.  Skin temperature can rise by up to 5 degrees during a hot flush.  Another common menopausal symptom is dry skin and eyes, which can be aggravated by heat and poor indoor air quality at work, leading to increased risks of irritation and infection.  Simple measures can help, such as access to cold drinking water, adjustable workplace temperature and additional ventilation using fresh air or a fan.

Remember that the particular health and safety needs of women should be considered as part of your normal risk assessment process, the key is a dynamic approach which recognises that in both pregnancy and menopause, the risks and their affect on employees will change with time.

Health & Safety Statistics (please keep reading!)

The HSE have produced their latest set of numbers related to health and safety performance in the UK. These provide a good overview of what’s happening in the health and safety world, and are useful indicators of what problems exist and where safety efforts should be targeted. So, if you’re an Ellis Whittam client and you’re wondering why your Consultant is focussing on a certain part of your organisation or why an Inspector is especially keen to see your accident records, here’s a brief heads up.

HSE monitor both ill-health and disease (the number of people with a work-related illness, rates for individual jobs and industries and estimated deaths due to work-related illnesses) and safety (rates of injuries and dangerous occurrences). HSE Inspectors and Environmental Health Officers use the information provided by statistics to decide what topics they will address during visits – so when you are visited, it’s certain you will be asked about your organisation’s arrangements for preventing illness and injury in the areas described below.

We’ve extracted the key facts from the HSE statistics for your reference. If you’re an Ellis Whittam client your Consultant will, of course, be delighted to help you if you are worried about any particular aspect, from Occupational Health to training.

Stress and musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) remain huge areas of concern, and both these should be areas of focus in all organisations. Stress accounted for 11m lost working days in 2010/11 and was most prevalent in the public sector, health care and education. Middle-aged (35-54) workers and females, especially those in managerial and professional jobs, were the highest rated groups – but workers of all ages and job types can suffer stress, especially in the current climate when stressors are increased by worries about jobs and finances. It’s important to recognise the symptoms of stress in your organisation and get help quickly. Similarly, musculoskeletal disorders are a critical area for action. Although these are reducing slowly, they still accounted for around 8 million lost days and over half a million cases. Workers over 45 are at particular risk, and as our workforce ages, completing effective manual handling risk assessments and training is crucial to avoid long-term problems amongst your staff.

Chronic health conditions remain a big problem – incidence of occupational cancers are running at an estimated 13,000 new cases each year, with asbestos exposure the leading cause of death – at least 4,000 deaths per year and increasing. Having an effective asbestos management system is essential to avoid future issues. There are about 7,000 new work related asthma cases every year. Dermatitis rates, especially in the hairdressing and floristry industries, are improving, but still at about 40,000 cases each year. Hearing loss due to workplace noise affects about 500,000 workers, especially in heavy industry and construction. Hand/arm vibration cases are declining as new equipment is introduced, but it still affects 300,000 workers in construction, foundries and manufacturing. All the above are areas where Inspectors will show interest and organisations should have a robust and efficient management system in place.

Moving on from health – and it is interesting that despite the general view, the enforcing authorities are actually more focussed on health issues than safety issues these days – the staggering cost of work-related ill health is a huge driver to improve, whichever government is in power. So, how are we doing on the safety front?

In the UK, we still had 171 fatal injuries in 2010/11. That’s 3 people a week who died because of their work. Every week. Three people. Sobering stuff, but there were also 26,000 major injuries and over 800,000 other injuries reported to HSE – and there still remains a large margin of under-reporting. Some key facts on these numbers:

• Most frequent causes are manual handling, slips and trips and falls from height
• Highest rates are men in manual occupations
• Worst industries are agriculture, construction and transport
• Less experienced workers are most at risk
   

No real surprises there – but what is your organisation doing about your hazards? Bearing in mind the numbers, are you comfortable that your health and safety efforts are all they should be? We are in tough times, all organisations are suffering. But please don’t let your health and safety standards be a casualty. Don’t become part of the statistics. Your mantra should be ‘Healthy and Safe in Everything We Do’.

Have a fantastic, safe 2012.

Managing Asbestos in Schools Outside Local Authority Control

In 2010/11, HSE focused on schools outside local authority control as the latest initiative in a series of interventions targeting asbestos management in schools. The primary aim was to determine the level of compliance with the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 (CAR) in a sample of targeted schools. HSE inspectors inspected a random sample of 164 non-local authority schools in England, Scotland and Wales. The schools included four types: foundation, independent, academies and voluntary aided.

Eighty-seven per cent (87%) of the schools visited as part of the survey were aware of who the duty holder was under the Regulations and who had the overall legal responsibility for management of maintenance and repair of the premises. However, there was still confusion in some schools over roles and responsibilities.

Schools that bought back services from the local authority were often uncertain or unaware of their own duties and were reliant on the local authority. Even where schools buy in asbestos management expertise from local authorities, as happens with a number of voluntary-aided schools, the governing body as the employer retains the overall responsibility for health and safety issues, including asbestos management. The governing body needs to be aware of what is involved in the duty to manage asbestos and ensure that everyone whose work is liable to bring them into contact with ACMs (Asbestos Containing Materials) has the appropriate competencies.

Fifty-one schools (31%) had no written asbestos management plan. There was a tendency to rely on asbestos surveys even where these were not as comprehensive, up to date or accessible as they should have been. Some schools relied unquestioningly on an asbestos management plan provided by the local authority without being fully conversant with the contents and without taking the measures necessary to incorporate local knowledge.

One hundred and fifteen (115) out of 164 schools (70%) had a comprehensive system in place to ensure that anyone that may disturb ACMs (Asbestos Containing Materials) is provided with information on any asbestos present. In 20 cases (12%) there was no system in place at all.

Where in-house operatives undertook building and maintenance work, fewer than half of those schools had ensured that the operatives had received the appropriate level of asbestos training.

Inspectors took enforcement action in 28 of the 164 schools – serving a total of 41 Improvement Notices:

• 17 were served for a failure to provide adequate training
• 14 for a lack of a written asbestos management plan
• 8 for a failure to implement a suitable system to manage the risks from asbestos
• 2 for a failure to undertake a survey/assessment of the presence of asbestos containing materials (ACMs)

(Source: HSE, October 2011)

Managing Contractors - A Guide for Employers

Managing contractors is a guide for small to medium-sized companies in the chemical industry, but it will also be of use to other industries and larger companies. This is the second edition of the guide.

It focuses on companies with 50 staff or less and has been produced in consultation with chemical companies.

Section 1 of the guidance aims to assist companies in understanding the nature of the problem. It includes a short self-assessment questionnaire to help readers establish how much work they need to do to improve contractor management standards.

Section 2 gives an overview of key health and safety law pertinent to the subject including the Construction (Design and Management) regulations 2007.

Section 3 provides a checklist based on the successful health and safety management model (HSG65) but specific to the topic of contractor management. Readers are invited to use it to assess the effectiveness of their current approach. It’s followed by an action planning form for documenting all of the improvement areas identified.

Section 4 explores 5 practical steps for managing contractors:

    Step 1: Planning
    Step 2: Choosing a contractor
    Step 3: Contractors working on site
    Step 4: Keeping a check
    Step 5: Reviewing the work

This section is supplemented by some practical exercises which ask readers to consider a typical scenario. The exercises involve hazard identification, identifying the risks arising from the hazards and risk elimination and control. The use of permit to work systems is also explained.

To download the report please click here.

HSE Gives RIDDOR Changes Thumbs Up

Employers will no longer have to report over-three day injuries to the authorities from next year, following the HSE’s decision to recommend an extension to the reporting threshold to ministers.

The absence period that triggers an accident report to the HSE or local authority under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) will rise from three to seven days. The HSE board agreed to recommend the change at its recent meeting, accepting the results of a public consultation which found a two-thirds majority in favour of putting back the absence threshold. The extension was first recommended by Lord Young is his report Common Sense, Common Safety, published last October, and the HSE board agreed to the public consultation in December.

The recommendation also includes extending the period in which dutyholders must notify the authorities of a RIDDOR-reportable accident from 10 to 15 days after the accident.

The HSE will now recommend the change to ministers and amendments to RIDDOR will be laid before parliament next February, so the new arrangements can come into force from April.

New Fire Rules for Care Homes

Following advice from the Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser, the Secretary of State has determined, under article 36 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 that, in this case, the use of self-closing devices on bedroom fire doors provides the most appropriate solution to remedy the failure to comply with article 14 (2) (b) of the Order.

This determination follows the fatal accident inquiry report into the fire at a care home in Uddingston, Lanarkshire, in which 14 residents died.

It is based entirely on the circumstances of the care home in question and the decisions have been taken after careful consideration of the particular circumstances relating to this case.

Director to Face Manslaughter Charge

A director of a construction firm has been accused of causing, through gross negligence, the death of a child who was killed when a wall he designed collapsed on her in 2008.

A three year old girl was killed when a wall, designed by the accused and constructed by his company, collapsed on to a public footpath in the Welsh coastal resort of Prestatyn, where she was walking with her mother. Given the direct role of the accused in the incident, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has decided that he should be charged with gross-negligence manslaughter.

The company, which has ceased trading, has been charged with an offence under section 3 of the HSWA, but escaped a charge of corporate manslaughter because the CPS did not judge it to be in the public interest to prosecute the firm for such an offence.

Rosemary Ainslie, reviewing lawyer for the CPS Special Crime and Counter Terrorism Division, said: “After considering reports from experts on construction standards and advice from counsel, I have decided that the individual should be charged with gross-negligence manslaughter for his role in designing and constructing the wall that collapsed.” She added: “I did consider whether the company should also be charged with corporate manslaughter. There is sufficient evidence to prosecute the company for this offence, but it would not be in the public interest to do so. The company had only two directors and the accused was the only one directly involved in this incident. The charge against him is sufficiently serious to address the alleged offending.”

Slips, Trips and Falls

According to the HSE, slips and trips are the single most common cause of major injury in UK workplaces, accounting for nearly half of all reported major injuries and almost a quarter of all ‘over-three-day injuries’ (HSE statistics 2009/10). [In addition to employees being affected, members of the public and visitors can also be significantly affected, and civil claims as a result of uneven walkways and pavements are increasing significantly.] The HSE has calculated that one slip or trip incident occurs every three minutes. A particularly important aspect of controlling the risk is for people to concentrate when moving around, hold onto handrails on stairs and if a potential cause of a slip or trip is seen, to report it – See it; Sort it and Report it.

In many cases, slipping or tripping leads to more serious consequences, such as falling from a height, collision with moving vehicles, scalding from falling pans of hot liquid or injury from sharp work tools. Falls from height equated to 16% of major injuries in 2009/10 and in 2008/2009 caused over 4000 major injuries. Falls from height also contribute to the numbers of workplace fatalities seen year on year, and this number is rising.

Slipping and tripping in sectors such as catering, construction and agriculture can lead to more serious injuries such as that of the 16 year old who plunged her hand and arm into a deep fat fryer to save herself from slipping on a wet floor.

Most of these slipping and tripping accidents are reasonably foreseeable and could have been prevented by implementing simple control measures; for example many are caused by wet floors, which could have been sign-posted or screened off. In all cases, there is a duty for the employer to ensure the health and safety of employees and any other person in or around the workplace. This requires the provision of safe access and egress, information, and adequate warnings of any risks to health and safety.

Legal Requirements
The general duty to prevent slips, trips and falls comes from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 Section 2(2)(d) for employees and Section 3(2) for others.  The general requirement for Risk Assessment – including those from slips, trips and falls, is given in the Management of Health and Safety at Work 1999, Regulation 3. These general duties are made more explicit within the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, Regulation 12, controlling the risks from slips and trips, and Regulation 13 controlling the risks from falls. These Regulations place an emphasis on the condition of floors and traffic routes and contamination.

It is also worth considering British and European Standards which cover aspects of slip resistance in flooring and footwear such as BS7976 which describes the specification, operation and calibration of the Pendulum test, used for assessment of floor surface slipperiness under both dry and contaminated conditions.

Identifying the Hazards of Slips, Trips and Falls - Common Underlying Causes
Commonly, the causes of slips and trips revolve around housekeeping problems, lack of care whilst completing a familiar action or task, or because of workplace layout. Housekeeping problems often result from a lack of care or interest from the users of a particular area, or inadequate planning of operations, such as cleaning or storage, particularly where a previously low-risk operation has been changed with little consideration of the new risks caused. As an example of lack of care of a workplace, it is often felt by the occupiers of an area that it is always someone else's 'responsibility' to rectify or report a fault or clean up spills, or get a cleaner to do it. In addition, factors such as lack of storage space or improperly stored items can also present hazards to people using an area - particularly in an emergency situation - and also to maintenance staff attempting to access areas that have been made more restricted by incorrect storage.

The main causes of slips will include:

• wet or dusty floors
• inadequate concentration – reading or using a mobile phone when walking
• spills of liquids or fine powders
• items, such as plastic filing sleeves, left lying on floors
• loose floor coverings on slippery floors
• inadequate lighting or too bright lighting causing glare
• wet or icy conditions
• use of unsuitable footwear

 

The main causes of trip hazards will include:

• loose floorboards
• loose floor coverings – carpets or mats
• coats on the backs of chairs, or personal belongings left inappropriately on the floor
• obstructions on the floor or low on walls
• cables or trailing leads across walkways
• poor housekeeping, work items or rubbish left in walkways
• poor lighting levels
• sloping or uneven flooring or surfaces
•  unsuitable footwear

 

Identifying Fall Hazards
Falls can occur as a result of slips or trips, so if those hazards are adequately identified, the falls attributable to these causes are likely to be suitably controlled.

Controlling the Risks of Slips, Trips and Falls
The main means for controlling the risks from poor housekeeping will include:

• keeping work areas tidy, and ensuring that waste is not permitted to accumulate in inappropriate areas or to block or restrict walkways
• ensuring that inappropriate storage of materials, products, tools or other obstructions are not allowed to encroach into walkways
• ensuring adequate maintenance of the fabric of the building (including floor coverings) to correct defects
• ensuring adequate inspections of the work areas at regular intervals to spot potential problems and obtain rectification before they become significant risks
• ensuring that adequate cable management systems are available, and used where cables have to cross walkways
• ensuring that lighting systems are adequate to prevent hazardous shadows, and are correctly maintained to ensure that they remain adequate
• ensuring that any changes in level of walkways are well lit and easy to recognise
• ensuring that protrusions into walkways are removed, re-sited, protected by barriers or covers, or are made easier to see

New Workers At Risk

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has warned that workers are as likely to suffer a reportable injury in the first six months at a workplace as during the whole of the rest of their working life. The safety regulator says a number of factors contribute to the excess risk, including lack of experience at or familiarity with the job and workplace.

New workers may also be hesitant or not know how to raise concerns and as novices may not recognise the risks or safe work processes. 'Vulnerable' groups, including young workers and migrant workers may face additional problems, which should be taken into account by employers.

The HSE has produced a six point plan to protect new starters which includes:

• Assessing their capability, for example literacy, numeracy or other factors including familiarity with the job and command of language.
• Providing a carefully planned induction for new workers showing them where the main hazards exist eg. falls, slips and transport.
• Ensuring control measures are up to date and are being used and maintained.
• Providing adequate information, instruction and training.
• Providing adequate supervision. Make sure workers know how to raise concerns and supervisors are familiar with the possible problems due to unfamiliarity and inexperience.
• Advice to Companies to ensure workers have understood the information, instruction and training they need to work safely, and are acting on it, especially during the vital first days/weeks at work and make sure workers know how and with whom they can raise any concerns about their health and safety and are aware of any emergency arrangements or procedures.

Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

A proposed new Bill will make changes to Conditional Fee Agreements (CFA) or 'No Win No Fee' agreements. These currently allow all legal costs, including the solicitor's success fee, to be recovered from the negligent defendant. Under the proposed new law, the injury or disease victim will be expected to give up 25 per cent of their compensation to meet his or her legal costs, even in cases where the defendant has been grossly negligent. The draft law leaves open the possibility for victims who lose cases to be required to pay legal costs incurred by the employer. The changes have been criticised by work injury and disease victims' advocates.

Report on Carcinogens Released

The Government released its 12th Report on Carcinogens (RoC) in June - naming styrene and formaldehyde as among the chemicals that are known (formaldehyde) or reasonably anticipated (styrene) to cause cancer in humans. Scientific bodies identified cancer risks - from exposure to formaldehyde - of the nasal cavity, and some types of leukaemia.

Styrene is used to manufacture many plastics, latex paints, synthetic rubbers, polyesters and coatings. It is also approved for use in food-contact materials, and as a synthetic flavouring in ice cream and candy. It is regulated as a Hazardous Air Pollutant by EPA, and considered possibly carcinogenic to humans by the World Health Organization.

What is generally accepted as a preventative requirement is a chemical regulatory law that works in order to ensure safe use of chemicals before - not after - they are sold to industry.

The HSE is returning to nasal cancer issues as the relationship between wood dust and this form of cancer are well known and there are an estimated 50 cases of this per year reported under RIDDOR when someone has worked in a building where wooden furniture is manufactured. The ailment is a prescribed disease giving entitlement to compensation through the Industrial Injuries Disablement Scheme.

Know Your Scaffolder

It is widely becoming accepted that the risk of accident or injury to scaffolding operatives can be greatly reduced if all relevant parties know what to expect from their scaffolding contractor at every stage of the process. Free information regarding current best practice requirements for scaffolding contractors prior to working with them on site, as well as what expectations are required once work has commenced, is obtainable free at enquiries@nasc.org.uk. The guide is aimed at clients, site or project managers, agents, surveyors, CDM coordinators, estimators, planners and designers. The guide covers:

• Scaffold types
• Regulations, codes of practice and best practice
• Competence
• Scaffolders' safety and PPE
• Scaffolding design
• Minimum scaffold requirements
• Scaffold handover and statutory inspections
• Risk assessments and method statements
• Summary of scaffolder cards
• Scaffold inspection reporting

 

The guidance aims to give best practice to those responsible for using scaffolders and to stop non-regulated scaffolders ignoring industry practice.

Eye Tests for Drivers

Road safety campaigners have warned fleet managers they must do more to ensure that their company drivers undergo regular eyesight tests.

Experts recommend that everyone should have an eye test at least every two years and whenever there is cause for concern. But one in six drivers cannot see well enough to pass the basic eyesight test, according to the Fleet Safety Forum, a division of road safety charity Brake. Every year in the UK, an estimated 12.5 million people who are due an eye test do not have one, the group said.

"Eyesight needs to be tested regularly throughout a driver's lifetime," said Caroline Perry, Marketing Manager at Brake. "Fleet managers must address the issue internally and consider their drivers' eyesight as part of their wider fleet safety strategy. Being an experienced and skilled driver is meaningless if a driver is unable to spot hazards due to poor vision."

The key barrier, especially for owners of large fleets, is the cost they would incur in testing all staff. However, what they would gain in terms of lower insurance premiums, less time lost to accidents, and a reduction in the risk to corporate reputation, would make the investment more than worth it.

Terminology

Long-sightedness/hyperopia: People can see distant objects clearly but have difficulty seeing near objects. About one-quarter of the population is affected, and the disorder is age-related.

Short-sightedness/myopia: People cannot see distant objects clearly but have no problems seeing near objects. It affects one-third of the UK population, and about 5% of those have high-degree myopia.

Glaucoma: The optic nerve is damaged due to raised pressure inside the eye. This affects about 2% of people over the age of 40, and becomes more common with increasing age. This condition can lead to blindness, unless it is detected and treated early.

Colour blindness: Red/green colour blindness accounts for about 99% of colour blindness cases, and is more common in men than women. It is no bar to getting a driving licence.

Depth perception: Refers to the ability of a person to see in three dimensions. A person with loss of depth perception is not fit to drive and cannot have a driving licence.

Presbyopia: Here the eye lens becomes rigid so that it can no longer focus effectively.

Diabetes: Can affect the eyes in a number of ways, such as causing the early onset of cataracts.

Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI)

RSI is the term used to describe a range of symptoms that are generally caused by repeated movement of a particular part of the body. 'Work related upper limb disorder' is also a term used to describe the same symptoms as the condition usually affects the upper limbs. Recent technology such as mobile phones (texting), hand held computer games and even hair dressing equipment (hair-straighteners) have increased the risk of RSI problems; however they are mainly connected with activities conducted in the workplace. The condition usually starts with a minor ache as it can affect muscles, nerves, bones, tendons and joints. Generally this condition is overlooked by the individual who does not seek medical treatment and allows the pain to worsen. This in turn creates a chronic condition from an acute effect.

There are two main factors which contribute towards this. The first is that the blood supply leading to the affected tissue is usually very poor thus reducing the healing process. Secondly, the strain occurs each time the activity is performed, e.g. using a computer mouse irritates tendons around the wrist - the condition worsens when the mouse is used again. In the early stages of these conditions if the tissues were rested fully the problem would ease, however because the healing of these tissues is poor the individual concerned would need to rest for a long period of time and the damage continues as and when the wrist is used.

Treatment available usually results in physiotherapy but unless the treatment is accompanied by changes in working practices over a longer period then the treatment may be pointless. An example can be seen when a secretary develops symptoms (after hours of word processing) that do not ease as other activities such as writing and texting are contributing to the condition. It has been established that recognising the symptoms early and controlling activities that contribute to the condition is the best way of easing the symptoms of an acute condition and minimising the chances of a resulting chronic condition.

New Sunbed Regulations

The Sunbeds (Regulation) Act 2010 came into force on 8th April 2011.

The main cause of skin cancer is over-exposure to ultraviolet (UV) rays, from natural sunlight or the use of sunbeds and sunlamps. Each year in the UK there are

• 100,000 new cases of non-melanoma skin cancer
• 10,000 incidences of malignant melanoma

 

Malignant melanoma is the second most common UK cancer in 15 to 24-year olds (those most likely to use sunbeds). Skin cancer may not become apparent until years after the damaging exposure has taken place.

The Act defines a sunbed as 'an electrically-powered device designed to produce tanning of the human skin by the emission of ultra-violet radiation'. This includes:

• Lie down sunbeds
• Canopy sunbeds
• Vertical stand-in sunbeds
• Sun showers, and
• Portable sun lamps

 

The Act imposes a duty on anyone involved in carrying on a sunbed business to ensure that no person under the age of 18 years:

• Uses a sunbed
• Is offered the use of a sunbed
• Is present in a restricted zone

There are some exemptions for those who are required to use a sunbed for medical treatment.

The following may be used by the owner of the sunbed to assist with compliance with the Act:

• Train and advise staff on how to check the age of users, including the types of document that can be used to prove age (Driving licenses, Passports, etc)
• Have written procedures for staff for dealing with people who may be under 18, train staff in these procedures and keep records of this training
• Keep a written record of any incident (and outcome) where a member of staff challenges a potential user about their age
• Maintain written records for each user for each session
• Use till prompts for sunbed use transactions, if the facility is available
• Display prominent and clear notices that no under-18s are permitted to use sunbeds
• Display prominent notices by the restricted zone that no under-18s may enter the zone
• Have a system in place to check that under-18s have not entered the restricted zone
• Ensure that when sunbed facilities are provided as part of a membership package, such as at a leisure centre or fitness club, that access to sunbeds is excluded from the membership package for under-18s
•     Provide information on restricted services in brochures and service directories
•     Train and advise staff who are under the age of 18 on the requirement not to use sunbeds

Putting Common Sense Back Into Health & Safety

On March 21st 2011 the work and pensions minister, Chris Grayling, who has responsibility for health and safety, set out the next stage of the government's proposals for health and safety reform.

At a meeting attended by representatives from business, trade unions, health and safety organisations and HSE, the government outlined a series of further reforms which the minister said herald "a new start for health and safety regulation for Britain's businesses". The detail of the reform proposals will be put out to public consultation.

The main proposals announced by the government are to:

• modernise the health and safety inspection regime with inspectors concentrating on high risk locations and irresponsible employers
• take steps to eliminate 'cowboy' health and safety consultants through the operation of the occupational health and safety consultants register which has already received over 1,500 registrations
• make health and safety advice and guidance for small and low risk businesses simple, accessible and bureaucracy-free
• review existing health and safety law with a view to scrapping measures that are an unnecessary burden on business. This review will be chaired by Professor Ragnar E Lofstedt of King's College, London, supported by an independent advisory panel and will publish its findings in autumn this year.

Lynda Armstrong, chair of the trustees of the British Safety Council, said, "I welcome the continuing momentum initiated by Lord Young to put common sense back into health and safety. We have always encouraged a professional, proportionate and knowledgeable approach to managing safety in the workplace."

Dr Luise Vassie, Executive Director of Policy, IOSH, said "IOSH welcomes moves to drive out any rogues from health and safety consultancy - and has been calling for Government support on this for some years. We're pleased to have been involved in the development of OSHCR and to see it go live today."

Asbestos Ruling

The Supreme Court has ruled allowing the family of a former Merseyside pupil a six-figure compensation payout following the exposure to asbestos at school which subsequently killed her. The Supreme Court agreed unanimously that the family of the victim, who died aged 49 from the asbestos cancer mesothelioma, can keep the £240,000 compensation awarded to her by Liverpool High Court in July 2009. Knowsley Council appealed against Liverpool High Court's judgement to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the High Court ruling, and then took the case to the Supreme Court.

The seven judges at the Supreme Court ruled that anyone who contracts an asbestos-related illness after even a slight exposure to asbestos will be eligible for compensation if their school or college has been negligent.

Management of Legionella

Legionella is still relatively new and has only been formally investigated for around 35 years.

The first properly investigated outbreak happened in 1976 in Philadelphia. At the time, a convention of the Legion Department of Pennsylvania had taken place at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel. On returning home, a large number of people began showing signs of 'flu like' symptoms. Around 30 people died as a result of exposure to the bacteria and 221 became ill with a form of the illness, now believed to be Pontiac Fever.

Their only link had been that they had all visited and stayed at the hotel during the convention. Although an exact source was never identified, it's recognised that the most likely location of the exposure happened at the hotel. The causative agent, a bacterium, was isolated from lung tissue samples and was subsequently named 'Legionella Pneumophila'

Research experts in the UK think Legionella is responsible for 2%-3% of all cases of pneumonia in Britain. In 2001, 200,000 people suffered from pneumonia in England. Less than 5% of these cases were 'agent identified'. This could suggest that up to 5,000 people in the UK suffer every year from Legionnaires Disease and possibly as many as 600 die.

In 2009, there were 345 cases of Legionnaires Disease reported to the Health Protection Agency (HPA) in the UK. Of the reported cases in 2009:

• 47% were contracted in the community
• 5% were hospital acquired
• 11% were associated with travel in the UK
• 37% were associated with travel abroad

 

12% of these cases resulted in death.

Legionella - where can it be found?

Legionella is a bacterium, not a virus, and can live and reproduce without the need for a host. Usually, it can be found in water sources like rivers, lakes and reservoirs - albeit, usually in low numbers. However, it has also been isolated and grown from soil samples. Legionella bacteria can survive in a number of environmental conditions. To date, more than 50 different species of the Legionella bacterium have been identified. The most significant of nineteen associated with ill-health in humans is that of Legionella Pneumophila, as it poses the highest significant risk to humans. Like most bacterium, Legionella usually has a life expectancy of around 72 hours. However, it can breed at an exponential rate if living in specific environmental conditions. The right environment is determined by two significant factors - temperature and the nutrients in the water.

Temperature

• Typically at below 20oC, the Legionella bacterium remains dormant and will not actively multiply
• At above 50oC, the bacterium starts to be killed off. It is thought that 50oC water will kill 90% of the Legionella bacteria in two hours. 60oC water kills 90 per cent of the bacteria in two minutes and 70oC water kills 99% of the bacteria in two seconds
• Consequently, the range from 20oC to 50oC favours growth, with the range of 35oC to 40oC favouring significant growth potential. 37oC offers peak proliferation, which is typically human body temperature

Nutrients in the water

• The presence of sediment, sludge, scale and other materials in the system, together with biofilm (slime) growth on man-made materials, provide the main source of food for the Legionella bacterium.
• Micro organisms form biofilm as a mechanism to withstand adverse conditions, such as limited nutrients or temperature extremes.
• However, the movement of the water often causes parts of the biofilm to break up and travel to different parts of the water system, allowing it to potentially colonize other parts of the system.

 

Various factors increase the likelihood of biofilm formation, including:

• The presence of nutrients, both in the source water and in the materials of the system
• Scale and corrosion
• Warm water temperatures
• Stagnation or low flow as ocurs in the dead ends of distribution system pipe work and in storage tanks

UK Cases

There have been a number of cases in the UK, most notably at Stafford Hospital and at the BBC Television Centre. It's believed that there were 162 confirmed cases and 37 deaths (22 directly attributed to Legionaires Disease) in the Stafford Hospital case alone.
However, in the past 10 years there have been a number of other reported major outbreaks resulting in death

• September 2010, South Wales: 22 cases and two deaths
• November 2003, Hereford: 28 cases and two deaths
• July 2002, Barrow-in-Furness: 150 confirmed cases and between seven and 13 deaths

 

The Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) on Legionnaire's Disease suggests an 'outbreak' is defined as "Two or more people diagnosed of Legionnaire's Disease that have a common place within the past six months."

Cooling towers, evaporative condensers, hot and cold water systems and spa pools are the most common sources. However, any water-based system that has the right environmental conditions has the potential to be a source for Legionella bacteria growth. It would be expected to find it in a system, evaluate the issues and control the issues and not to allow the proliferation of the micro-organisms in the water system or to reduce, so far as is reasonably practicable, exposure to water droplets and aerosols from them.

References

• Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) - L8- Legionnaire's Disease - The Control of Legionella Bacteria in Water Systems (Third Edition 2000, reprinted 2008)
• Management of Spa Pools (Health Protection Agency, 2006)
• British Standard BS8580 - Water quality - Risk Assessments for Legionella Control (December, 2010)
• Legionella and the prevention of Legionellosis (World Health Organisation, 2007)

Changes to RIDDOR

The Health and Safety Executive has agreed a plan for the publication of consultation documents on proposed changes to The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR).

In his report on health and safety, Lord Young recommended that RIDDOR be amended 'by extending to seven days the period before an injury or accident needs to be reported'. In line with commitments made in the Government's formal response to the report, HSE will open a three month consultation in January 2011. Under current rules, when an employee is absent from work for more than three days following an incident or injury at work, employers are required to report the incident to the relevant enforcing authority - either HSE or the local council. The proposed amendment increases this 'over three day' period to over seven consecutive days. This change would align the incident reporting threshold with that for obtaining a 'fit note' from a GP for sickness absence, and would ensure that someone who has suffered a reportable injury has had a professional medical assessment.

Judith Hackitt (HSE Chair) said: "The Board discussed the proposals at length, and asked for some additional work to be done prior to the launch of the consultation in January. Whilst there will be some obvious advantages in reducing the reporting requirements on business, there will be other factors which need to be taken into account. We hope that interested parties will use the consultation exercise to provide the range of perspectives we need to consider in order for us to advise the Government appropriately."

The consultation paper will be published on the HSE website commencing 17 January 2011. The deadline for responses will be 11 April 2011. HSE will then consider the responses, and expects to be in a position to submit recommendations to the Secretary of State by the end of May.

Flu Pandemic Guidance Published

The Department for Education has developed guidance on dealing with flu pandemics with the assistance of the Department of Health and the Health Protection Agency. Much of the guidance would also be relevant as general good hygiene practice to help companies reduce the spread of more common infections. The guidance available for download also includes two NHS posters (on hand-washing and 'coughs and sneezes'), which can be ordered free of charge from the Department of Health, quoting references 278819 or 279933 respectively.

The following guidance is now available:

• Infection control - how to reduce the spread of pandemic flu:
• Guidance for school and early years or childcare settings
• Summary chart for early years/childcare settings
• Infection control - how to reduce the spread of pandemic flu: Guidance for childminders
• Summary chart for childminders
• Infection control - how to reduce the spread of pandemic flu: Guidance for residential settings for children and vulnerable young people
• Infection control - how to reduce the spread of pandemic flu: Guidance for further education colleges and higher education institutions
• NHS hand-washing poster
• NHS 'coughs and sneezes' poster
• Swine Flu leaflet

 

Flu Pandemic Guidance can be found here.

Prosecution for Ignoring Safety Notices

A Gloucester fencing company ignored orders to provide access to hot running water for staff and to ensure its local exhaust ventilation system was working. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) served both Improvement and Prohibition Notices on Andy Sutton Fencing Ltd. ordering the firm to properly protect its workers from wood dust and dangerous machinery at its Great Western Road premises.

The offences came to light following a complaint about the site and several notices were served on the company following a visit by a HSE inspector in March 2010. The notices covered a range of areas including requiring a thorough examination of a local exhaust ventilation system for the prevention of exposure to wood dust and providing running hot water within reasonable access of the premises. Around a month after the compliance date, the inspector visited the site and found two of the improvement notices had not been complied with.

Andy Sutton Fencing Ltd, of Great Western Road, Gloucester pleaded guilty to two breaches of Section 33(1)(g) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 at Gloucester Magistrates Court. The company was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,369.

Following the hearing, HSE Inspector said: "This firm disregarded notices that were issued to safeguard the health of its own employees. Compliance with prohibition and improvement notices is a legal requirement and the notices cannot be disregarded in this way. Ignoring notices is unacceptable and puts the safety and welfare of workers at risk. Also, as this firm discovered to its cost, it is liable to end up in a prosecution."

Prosecution for Injuries at Work

A metal forming company has been prosecuted after a teenage worker lost parts of two fingers on his very first day working at the plant. The nineteen-year-old worker had only started work three hours earlier for Goscote-based company, when his hand became trapped in a power press.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted the company following the incident on 28 October 2009, in which the worker's left hand was seriously injured. Walsall Magistrates' Court heard that the injured worker was feeding strips of steel through a power press, punching 10cm shapes from the metal when his hand became trapped in an unguarded part of the machine. As a result of his injuries, his middle and ring fingers had to be amputated at the first joint.

The company pleaded guilty on 17th January to breaching Regulation 11 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The company was fined £5,000 and ordered to pay £2,534 costs.

A HSE inspector said: "This young man has suffered permanent and debilitating injuries from an incident that should never have happened."

Prosecution for Failing to Insure Staff

A Bradford takeaway owner has been fined for failing to insure his staff against work-related injuries and illnesses. Trading as 'The Raj', an Indian curry house, the owner was not in court for the hearing, but Bradford magistrates dealt with the case in his absence after he failed to appear for the second time.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) approached the owner after receiving information that the takeaway did not have Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance. After he ignored a letter requesting his insurance certificate, HSE served the owner with a notice to produce the certificate. Again, the owner failed to respond.

Bradford Magistrates' Court heard how a HSE inspector then visited the restaurant and spoke to two employees who were unable to show an insurance certificate. As a result, the owner was invited for an interview under caution but, again, failed to respond.

The owner of the takeaway 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 must also pay a £1,000 penalty for failing to producing an insurance certificate and was ordered to pay full costs of £2,585.

First Corporate Manslaughter Conviction

Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd. became the first UK company to be convicted of corporate manslaughter recently when they were convicted by a jury at Winchester Crown Court.

The case centred on a geologist who was killed when a trench collapsed on him while investigating soil conditions at a site in Stroud, Gloucestershire. Rescue workers took two days to recover the body from under several tonnes of mud and a post-mortem examination showed he died from traumatic asphyxia.

The company was prosecuted under the Corporate Manslaughter & Corporate Homicide Act 2007 which came into force in April 2008. The company has been fined £385,000. The maximum penalty is an unlimited fine.