Waste Operator Prosecuted for Health & Safety Breaches


I


ndependent operators in the waste industry are usually well versed and experienced in dealing


with regulators. More oſt en than not it will be the Environment Agency that knocks on their doors. However, accidents in the waste industry accounted for 14 of the 137 deaths in the workplace last year (the fourth highest sector for work-related fatalities).


H&S Sentencing Guidelines: In February 2017, new sentencing guidelines were introduced in respect of breaches of health and safety legislation. T ese guidelines dramatically increased the level of fi nes that criminal courts can impose on companies who are found to have breached health and safety legislation. T e past 18 months have seen a number of high-profi le companies subjected to multi-million-pound fi nes.


Waste Operator Prosecuted: T e waste industry is far from immune from the impact of the increased fi nes. A recent case, heard at the Crown Court, concerned a waste operator that was unfortunate enough to be prosecuted for breaches of health and safety at two of its sites.


Charge 1:Working at height may not be an activity that instantly springs to one’s mind when considering the risks associated with the waste industry. However, the Work at Height Regulations 2005 (“the Regulations”) apply to all work at height, where there is risk of a fall liable to cause personal injury. T ey place a duty on employers to protect its employees and anyone they may be deemed to control, such as contractors they hire in to do the work.


In this case, the roof of one of the company’s offi ces had fallen into a state of disrepair and the company wanted it replaced. Having been let down at the last minute by a local building fi rm, the company sought the assistance of two local contractors. However, they were ill equipped to complete the job. T e contractors did not adequately plan the job, they were not adequately supervised and they did not have proper fall prevention equipment. Whilst the contractors were working on the roof they were observed by a passing HSE inspector. T ey were questioned and, despite the fact there had not been any accident (or even a near miss), the company was prosecuted for breaching the Regulations.


Charge 2: In another incident, an associated company had an inspection by the Environment Agency. During the course of the site visit the Agency offi cer had asked to speak to the manager. At the time, he was working in an excavator that was located on top of the waste pile that was 2-3 metres high. Instead of climbing down the waste pile, the manager transported another operative in the bucket, liſt ing him up to the cab, they swapped places and the


10


manager was liſt ed down to the transfer station fl oor in the bucket. Despite this being a relatively short incident, and no-one being injured, the case was reported to the HSE and the company was prosecuted.


Guilty Plea: T e company pleaded guilty to having breached the Regulations and appeared at the Crown Court for sentencing. T e court’s approach when sentencing corporate defendants is, in summary, to look the at the culpability of the defendant, to then assess the risk of harm created by the off ence, to consider the turnover of the company and then to consider any other matters that may have an impact on the fi ne. T e maximum fi nancial penalty imposed by the Guidelines for Charge 1 was, £2.5 million and for Charge 2, £1 million.


T e Fine:Working at height can, in many cases, carry the risk that employees may die if an accident occurs. T e sentencing judge was concerned by the lack of planning and supervision of the contractors and as a result of the lack of fall equipment, considered that there was a high likelihood that serious harm would have occurred. A fi ne of £133,000 was imposed for Charge 1.


In respect of charge 2, it was recognised that the risk of any serious harm being suff ered by the manager was actually very low on the basis that had he fallen onto the waste it would have been a relatively soſt landing. Furthermore, the actions of the manager were unforeseeable and contrary to his training and the company’s procedures. A fi ne of £6,000 was imposed.


Brush up on H&S Procedures: Whilst the fi nes could have been signifi cantly higher, given the HSE’s view of the incidents, this case should act as a reminder to those working in the waste industry that it does not require an accident at work for the HSE to prosecute corporate entities for health and safety breaches. T e level of fi nes that can be imposed by the courts have been signifi cantly increased and what may, at fi rst blush, appear to be


relatively minor breaches, they can lead to large six and even seven fi gure fi nes.


It is likely that we will see far more of these cases in the waste industry. However, the level of fi nes (and indeed accident prevention) can be improved by ensuring that employees, and if applicable contractors, are properly trained and that adequate procedures are put in place to ensure that health and safety responsibilities are appropriately considered and addressed.


Austin Welch is a specialist regulatory barrister who practices from Lincoln House Chambers in Manchester. He is well known for his expertise in Health & Safety & Environmental Law.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36