Arnold Laver and Company Ltd have been sentenced for safety breaches after a worker was struck by objects falling from an articulated trailer.
On 24 July 2019, the 45-year-old worker had been unloading the bottom deck of the double deck articulated trailer, which was being used for overflow storage at the company’s Manningham Sawmill site in Canal Road, Bradford.
The HSE’s investigation found that the trailer was being used to store mainly composite decking on the lower deck. The upper deck contained packs of MDF architrave, timber stock, and various promotional materials.
Another operative needed to place a pallet of decking on the bottom deck, and to make more space to do that he removed a side support, which helped to hold the top deck of the trailer up. However, another side support had already been disengaged and when the second support was removed the loaded top deck of the trailer partially collapsed. Part of a pack of architrave slid off the top deck and hit the worker. He suffered a broken left femur and other bones in his left foot.
Arnold Laver and Company Ltd of Bramall Lane Sheffield South Yorkshire pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company has been fined £150,000 and ordered to pay £1,719 in costs.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector David Beaton said: “The use of the trailer as a storage facility had not been properly risk assessed. This incident could so easily have been avoided by simply using correct control measures and safe working practices.”
This is valid as of 17th May 2021.
What you’ll get: Auberne Homes Limited and groundworks contractor W and E Lammie have been fined after an employee of W and E Lammie was crushed and severely injured during an excavation collapse.
On 20 February 2018, employees of W and E Lammie were carrying out drainage works within an excavation at a construction site at Holmhead Gardens, Cumnock, when a section of the unsupported wall of the excavation collapsed and crushed one of the employees, causing serious injuries.
Investigating, the HSE identified that W and E Lammie failed to:
The investigation also identified that in their role as principal contractor, Auberne Homes Limited, failed to plan, manage and monitor the drainage works being carried out on their construction project.
W and E Lammie, a now dissolved partnership, having previously had a place of business at Muirkirk Road, Cumnock pled guilty to breaching Regulation 15(2) of The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 and were fined £18,000.
Auberne Homes Limited, of Beresford Court, Ayr pled guilty to breaching Regulation 13(1) of The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 and were fined £35,000.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Duncan Officer said: “This incident could so easily have been avoided had the excavation work been properly planned and carried out by suitably trained individuals to ensure that the appropriate safety measures were implemented to prevent excavation collapse. Had the principal contractor carried out suitable checks they could have been identified that those carrying out the work were untrained and that safe working practices were not being followed on site.
“The requirement for control measures and safe working practices during excavation work are well-known in the construction industry. HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action against those responsible for the excavation works and those in control of the construction site where these required standards are not met.”
This is valid as of 15th May 2021.
A new study by road safety charity IAM RoadSmart has exposed underlying hardships faced by working drivers that were already prevalent before the pandemic and are now likely to worsen.
According to the whitepaper, delivery drivers, taxi and private hire drivers, the gig-economy and even company car drivers face constant pressure to keep up with demand and this, along with resultant fatigue, has a negative impact on their mental and physical health.
The paper also highlights the effect of weak employer strategies, lack of policies and prosecution for health and safety lapses, together with the ever-present strain from doubts over the economy, job security, redundancy and reduction in pay due to furlough.
IAM RoadSmart is therefore calling for urgent changes to be made to support working drivers through a raft of solutions such as driver training, policies, advice and procedures.
These include education and guidance on avoiding driver fatigue and an evaluation of policies and procedures such as the length of the driving day and shifts.
Tony Greenidge, chief executive officer at IAM RoadSmart, said: “What COVID did was expose what in many cases was already there. Individuals involved in driving for work were already rushed and under pressure. Post-COVID they probably will be more so because there’s more fear about job security and more pressure on employers to recover lost ground. But at least now we are discussing it.”
IAM RoadSmart also believes further change needs to happen through increased prosecution of liable companies, especially SMEs, as one-third of road safety deaths are people driving for business, while there should also be a review on the resources available to drivers, such as motorway services and roadside facilities, as many drivers are deterred from stopping for essential rest due to prices.
Tony added: “People long for everything to go back to normal. The problem is, for many drivers normal wasn’t such a good place.
“The facts cannot be ignored and now is the time for CEOs and leaders to act. COVID-19 has significantly impacted an area already under immense strain. Drivers’ and riders’ safety cannot continue to slip through the net unnoticed.”
This is valid as of 14th May 2021.
According to research undertaken by the BBC, almost all of 50 of the UK’s biggest employers questioned have said they do not plan to bring staff back to the office full-time.
Some 43 of the firms said they would embrace a mix of home and office working, with staff encouraged to work from home two to three days a week. Four firms said they were keeping the idea of hybrid working, working from home some of the time, under review.
Currently, people who can work from home are still advised to do so. However, that is likely to change in June when the government hopes to end all social distancing restrictions.
“We’re never going to go back to working the way we used to work,” said Mark Read, chief executive of advertising firm WPP. But the new ways of using the office require careful planning, he told the BBC.
“People are working from home three to four days a week so we probably need 20% less space, but we’re not going to do that if everyone’s working from home on Mondays and Fridays.”
Choice
Other companies cite “smart working” and “flexibility” as reasons for introducing hybrid working, with many suggesting that workers would be able to make their own choices about how often they come into the office.
Danny Harmer, chief people officer at insurance giant Aviva – which has 16,000 UK workers – said 95% of its workers said they would like to be able to spend some of their time working flexibly and remotely in different locations.
But she said the company had to be mindful that many staff appreciate being in an office, such as those who live alone or do not have a suitable place to work.
Recruitment firm Adecco, which has 34,000 UK workers, said about four-fifths of its staff now work remotely.
“Rather than having pre-set rules we are encouraging our leaders to engage with colleagues to implement strategies that work for their business,” it said.
The BBC questioned 50 big employers, ranging from banks to retailers, to get an idea of when workers may return to the office. The firms contacted by the BBC covered 1.1 million workers in the UK.
Businesses that depend on custom from office workers – such as cafes and restaurants – are keen for them to return as soon as possible.
“We rely really heavily on the office trade,” Joao Almeida, of Panda Cup Coffee in London’s Blackfriars, told the BBC. He was one of millions of people unable to work from home during the pandemic.
“There are locations that have 5,000 people, but only 140 come to the building with most working from home or maybe once a week coming in. That makes it really difficult.”
Carl Forder, who owns the Pottergate Pantry sandwich shop in Norwich saw an 80% drop in business when workers, including 5,000 at the nearby Aviva office, were told to work from home where possible.
“We really hope a lot more office workers return to Norwich when it’s safe for them to do so. It affects a lot of businesses, from the cleaners who clean the offices, right through to coffee shops and sandwich bars. We want that buzz back again.”
Government guidance
But there may not be a deluge of workers returning this month. The companies told the BBC they were opening offices “in line with government guidance”, which means many plan to reopen offices from 21 June.
Some have already reopened their offices to a limited number of workers.
Investment firm JP Morgan and recruiter Michael Page allowed workers to return from 29 March, while Adecco, recruiter Hays Group and WPP reopened offices on 12 April. Investment firm Rathbones has allowed workers to return “if they wish”, subject to a 25% capacity. WPP reopened its UK offices at a 30% capacity but is increasing that to 50% this month.
Many have given workers the choice, with Michael Page saying staff could return to the office “should they choose to do so”.
But some other companies are delaying their office re-opening plans. Outsourcing giant Capita said workers have been told they will work from home until at least the end of June, while Lloyds Bank has asked staff to stay at home until at least the summer.
This is valid as of 13th May 2021.
Two mill managers have been cleared of health and safety offences following an explosion which killed four people in 2015.
The explosion at the wood mill in Bosley, Cheshire, on 17 July 2015, killed cleaner Dorothy Bailey, 62, maintenance fitter Derek William Barks, known as Will, 51, mill worker Derek Moore, 62, and chargehand Jason Shingler, 38, whose body was never recovered.
Mill manager Peter Shingler, 56, of Tunstall Road, Bosley, and operations manager Philip Smith, 58, of Raglan Road, Macclesfield, had each been charged with a health and safety offence but, following a 12-week trial, the jury was directed to return not guilty verdicts. The case was heard on 30 April.
Their acquittal came after the jury was directed to find mill owner George Boden and firm Wood Treatment Ltd not guilty of manslaughter charges.
Tony Badenoch QC, prosecuting, said: “…the position has now been reached that the prosecution will not continue to seek guilty verdicts in the case of Mr Smith and Mr Shingler.”
After he was cleared of four counts of gross negligence manslaughter, Boden pleaded guilty to an offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
Wood Treatment Ltd had admitted a health and safety offence before going on trial charged with corporate manslaughter. The manslaughter charges were dropped following an application to dismiss on behalf of the defendants at the end of the prosecution case.
In her judgement, later confirmed by the Court of Appeal, Judge Mrs Justice May ruled there was not enough evidence to prove that gross negligence caused the explosion.
During the trial, which began in early February, the court heard the damage caused to the mill had made it impossible for investigators to determine the cause of the blast. The prosecution said it involved an explosion of wood dust allegedly caused by negligence on the part of the company and management, who they claimed knew dust levels were excessively high.
The jury heard evidence that employees had raised concerns about safety at the mill in the years leading up to the explosion and reported “mounds” of wood dust piling up.
Sentencing of Mr Boden and Wood Treatment Ltd will take place on 18 June.
This is valid as of 12th May 2021.
Disposable face masks could be releasing chemical pollutants and nano-plastics into the environment, researchers have warned. Scientists have said there needed to be better regulation and more research carried out.
The Swansea University team found heavy metals and plastic fibres were released when throw-away masks were submerged in water. The researchers said the public health impact needed more investigation.
“Before the pandemic, we were looking at reducing the use of plastic straws, reducing packaging, but now we are looking at hundreds and thousands of these masks being disposed,” said the project leader, Dr Sarper Sarp, of the university’s College of Engineering.
“We need to sort our priorities – first of all we need to get over the pandemic and protect each other and the public health. Then, in the meantime, we need to take steps to protect the environment.”
Back in November last year, the researchers were only originally interested in the plastic waste impact on our environment. But as they tested more and more masks, they uncovered more chemicals.
The pollutants were often linked to dyes used in producing the masks, mostly made in southern Asia, and China in particular. The team found traces of lead, antimony and cadmium – all heavy metals which can be toxic in low doses. They said the levels found were in the range of parts per million or parts per billion.
“On an environmental scale with the amount of production of these things – it all accumulates,” warned Dr Geraint Sullivan, technology transfer fellow at the university.
He said the heavy metals found were also “bio-accumulative”, which means they are not removed from aquatic systems and they build up over time. Every mask tested leached chemicals when submerged.
“That’s what’s quite shocking really – even though they are at such trace levels, the amount of material being produced out there is going to have an effect on the wider environment,” added Dr Sullivan.
Project leader Dr Sarp, who is also a member of the Welsh government’s Covid technical advisory group of scientists, said there was much more work to be done on the face masks.
“It might not be a big issue now but accumulation is a problem we will face in the future,” he said.
“The benefits of wearing the masks are huge, so we need to keep wearing them, but we need to be looking at different regulations and standardisation of the masks and the quality of the materials we use. We need to look at how they are produced, how we can test these, and how to standardise their quality.”
Dr Sarp said with that information, they would be able to educate and inform the public about the masks, and ensure they are safer for individuals and the environment.
This is valid as of 11th May 2021.
One of the core terminals of Peel Ports London Medway, Port of Sheerness Limited, has been fined following an incident where an employee was seriously injured by a clamp truck.
On 28 October 2018, an employee was hit by a five-tonne clamp truck in a paper reel shed on the Sheerness Port. The employee sustained an open leg fracture and was knocked unconscious. He was subsequently airlifted to hospital and had to have his leg amputated.
The HSE’s investigation into the incident found that the Port of Sheerness Limited failed to ensure pedestrians and vehicles could circulate and operate safely, putting the employee and others at significant risk. Supervisors were frequently working amongst five to six clamp trucks whilst undertaking the supervision of the paper reel unloads.
It was found that there had been previous incidents where supervisors had been in close proximity of the vehicle operations on the port and had been hit by vehicles or product. Port of Sheerness Limited had only reviewed the immediate work relating to the incidents.
Port of Sheerness Limited of Sheerness Docks, Sheerness, Kent pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. They were fined £60,000 and ordered to pay costs of £10,886.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Joanne Williams said: “This incident has resulted in life changing injuries in a wholly avoidable incident, caused by the failure of the company to identify the roles of the supervisors in the reel sheds and how the work was actually being undertaken.
“They did not learn from the previous incidents involving supervisors and lift trucks to review supervisory activities across the port. There is no excuse for companies that neglect this risk.
“Pedestrians, whether they are employees or not, should be kept separate from these types of vehicles through physical barriers or safe systems of work that are clear and well supervised.
“Every year many people are killed or seriously injured in incidents involving workplace transport, and there are significant risks associated with operating vehicles on ports, particularly when, as in this case, the vehicles have restricted visibility due to the lifting of large paper reels. These risks can be easily controlled using reasonably practicable precautions.”
This is valid as of 10th May 2021.
What you’ll get: Tyne Wear Metro operator, Nexus, has been fined £1.5 million after pleading guilty to an offence under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974., for failing to ensure the safety of staff.
The fine follows the death of a Nexus employee at the company’s South Gosforth depot in July 2014.
John Bell died while working at height carrying out maintenance work on high voltage overhead cables. He was electrocuted after contacting a wire he believed to be isolated from the power supply, but, due to the incorrect installation of equipment, it was in fact live.
In its investigation, industry regulator the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) found safety critical procedures were ignored and some continued for a substantial period after Mr Bell’s death.
This included:
ORR found lessons were not learned over a number of years and problems persisted despite the death of Mr Bell, putting people at risk for a substantial period thereafter.
Ian Prosser CBE, HM Chief Inspector of Railways at ORR, said: “Nexus’ working practices were poor and continued so for a long time. This meant Nexus did not have the right measures in place to assess whether the Metro was being maintained safely.
“It is a fundamental safety requirement to test electrical equipment before any work takes place, but the failure to review and monitor safety critical systems meant that lessons were not learned.
“This sadly contributed to the events which caused the death of Mr Bell. Our thoughts remain with the family and friends of Mr Bell and I hope this result brings them some peace.”
Nexus agreed the failures involved were a significant cause of the death of Mr Bell.
In his remarks, His Honour Judge Spragg said the case was an avoidable tragedy of a much loved man and that Nexus should have prevented such a state of affairs from arising and continuing.
Nexus were fined £1.5 million and ordered to pay £172,390.98 in costs at Newcastle-Upon-Tyne Crown Court on 23 April.
This is valid as of 8th May 2021.
All transfers of registrations following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU have now been completed, according to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). More than 8,000 UK-based registrations have been successfully transferred to companies in the EU, EEA or Northern Ireland, it says, adding that these companies must review and, if needed, update the information in these registrations
As the transfers have now been completed, safety information may need to be reviewed and updated, and administrative information, such as the company’s role in the supply chain, may also need to be revised by the new registrant, says the Agency.
If an update is required, registrants have up to three months to update administrative information or up to six, nine or 12 months for more complex updates. These timelines have been clarified in the Commission’s Implementing Regulation on dossier updates. The obligation to update applies to REACH registrations and previously notified substances (NONS) under the Dangerous Substances Directive.
All information in a registration dossier is checked for completeness, whether it is newly submitted or was already previously included in the registration. Since March 2021, ECHA also checks the completeness of the chemical safety reports.
Information on how to update a registration dossier is available on ECHA’s website.
Now that the transfer of all registrations has been completed, 2,964 UK-registrations were not transferred, and are therefore legally void. These are now indicated as ‘revoked’ in ECHA’s database and on ECHA’s website.
Background
Under REACH, companies are responsible for collecting information on the properties and uses of the substances they manufacture or import above one tonne a year.
This information is communicated to ECHA through a registration dossier containing the hazard information and, where relevant, an assessment of the potential risks that the use of the substance may pose as well as how these risks should be controlled.
The deadlines that need to be followed have been clarified in the Commission’s Implementing Regulation on dossier updates ((EU)2020/1435).
This is valid as of 7th May 2021.
If not, then we can help! We identify some of the key planned environmental changes in 2021 including the following: Following agreement by both Houses on the text of the Fire Safety Bill, it received Royal Assent on 29 April 2021. The Bill is now an Act of Parliament (law).
The Bill had returned again to House of Lords for consideration of Commons amendments last Wednesday, in the latest (and final) round of Parliamentary ‘ping pong’.
MPs voted 242 to 153 to defeat an amendment to the Bill, which sought to protect the owners of blocks of flats from passing the costs of required safety upgrades on to leaseholders.
The Bill, which has gone through many rounds of votes, aims to toughen safety rules after 72 died in the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire in west London.
The new legislation modifies a previous law to clarify that building owners must manage and reduce the risk of fire in their properties. The government was under pressure last week to get it passed before the end of the parliamentary session on Thursday.
Thousands of leaseholders are currently facing large bills to pay for safety improvements, including fire breaks, new balconies, safer doors and sprinkler systems.
Ministers have been defeated several times in the House of Lords while attempting to pass the legislation as the issue of who should pay for additional safety works became a sticking point.
Earlier this year, the government announced a new £3.5bn support package, with ministers insisting no leaseholders in high-rise blocks in England will face charges for the removal of unsafe cladding.
However, critics of the government’s response have argued this will not cover all of the costs faced by leaseholders, which they said have emerged through no fault of their own.
Housing minister Chris Pincher said the Bill “is an important first step in our legislative programme delivering these recommendations and I cannot stress enough… the vital importance of this legislation and the ramifications if it fails as a result of outstanding remediation amendments.”
Speaking at the House of Commons last week, Mr Pincher said there was not enough time to redraft the Bill to both stop leaseholders from footing the bill and address concerns with the existing amendment.
Also last week, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) announced it has commissioned the British Standards Institution (BSI) to draft a code of practice for assessing external cladding.
(Scotland)
Following a thorough investigation and criminal prosecution leading to the conviction of two parties Crown Counsel, on behalf of the Lord Advocate, have decided not to hold a Fatal Accident Inquiry into the deaths of Richard Dyson and Simon Midgley at Cameron House Hotel in December 2017.
The multi-agency investigation carried out by Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS), West Dunbartonshire Council and Police Scotland was overseen by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS).
These investigations led to criminal prosecutions in which Cameron House Resort (Loch Lomond) Limited and Christopher O’Malley admitted responsibility for the fatal fire.
The purpose of a Fatal Accident Inquiry is to determine the cause of death and to establish what lessons can be learned for the future in order to minimise the risk of future deaths in similar circumstances.
Crown Counsel are satisfied that the reasons for this tragedy have been established and that the circumstances of the deaths were publicly identified during the prosecution process. The sheriff’s sentencing statements from these cases are published and provide an account of the events of the fire and the failings which were admitted.
In addition, Crown Counsel note that SFRS will engage with the accommodation sector to highlight the investigation and the tragic outcomes from the incident at the Cameron House Hotel and that this approach will be shared with UK Fire and Rescue Services to inform best practice.
In light of these judicial findings and safety review, and the detailed understanding available to SFRS of the events around the fire, Crown Counsel concluded that the public interest would not be further served by an FAI as the purpose of such an inquiry has already been met.
Alistair Duncan, head of the Health and Safety Investigation Unit of COPFS, said: “COPFS appreciates the impact the fire has had on the families and friends of Mr Dyson and Mr Midgley and many other people who were at the hotel that night.
“The nearest relatives of those who lost their lives have been provided with detailed reasons for the decision not to hold an FAI and our thoughts are with them at this time.”
This is valid as of 4th May 2021.
An employee sustained serious injuries when he was hit by a forklift truck.
On 11 July 2019, the delivery driver was in a delivery yard at Driver’s Wharf in Southampton, while his vehicle was being loaded. He was hit by a forklift truck and knocked to the ground. The forklift truck ran over his legs causing severe crush injuries.
The HSE’s investigation found that there were inadequate control measures in place to segregate pedestrians and vehicles at the delivery yard.
Skillbeech Services Ltd of Carnac Place, Cams Hall Estate, Fareham pleaded guilty to breaching section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. They were fined £32,000 and ordered to pay costs of £8,222.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Nicola Pinckney said: “The injuries sustained in this incident were life changing and could have easily been fatal.
“This incident could have been avoided if basic vehicle and pedestrian segregation and control measures such as barriers, marked walkways and safe working practices had been in place.”
This is valid as of 1st May 2021.
Free downloads, advance notice of webinars, product updates and perks – all straight to your inbox.