search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
NEWS THE INCOURTS


FALL FROM HEIGHT RISKS SEE CONTRACTOR IN COURT


A roofing contractor has been fined after a health and safety inspector came across two workers jet washing a steeply pitched roof on a house without adequate protection.


Manchester Magistrates’ Court heard that on 5 December 2019, a HSE inspector observed the employees of Improvearoof LLP on the roof of a detached property in Hale Barns using two powerful jet washers unsafely; and without any means of fall protection such as scaffolding or harnesses. The inspector issued a prohibition notice and the work was stopped until suitable measures were put in place.


An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that poor planning from management


led to the failure of the erection of scaffolding prior to the work being carried out.


Improvearoof LLP of Macclesfield Road, Hazel Grove, Stockport pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 4(1) and 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. The company was fined £20,000, ordered to pay costs of £2,981.20 and a victim surcharge of £180.


Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Phil Redman said: “Although the two workers should have raised concerns immediately with site management regarding the lack of scaffolding, it was the responsibility of the company to manage the job safely.


“Falls from height remain one of the most common causes of work-related fatalities in this country and the risks associated with working at height are well known. Companies should be aware that unsafe work at height without suitable and sufficient controls in place is not acceptable and HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below the required standards.”


MÜLLER PROSECUTED AFTER AGENCY WORKER’S FINGERS AMPUTATED


A food company specialising in dairy products has been prosecuted after an agency worker suffered severe injuries when their fingers were caught in machinery.


Walsall Magistrates’ Court heard that following the incident on 12 July 2016, an agency worker had to have their middle finger amputated below the second knuckle, lost half their index finger and had their third finger amputated to the first knuckle. The agency employee was working as a box maker on a machine known as a tray erector, at the company’s Minsterley site in Shropshire, when the incident occurred.


An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the in-running nip on the tray erector was not properly guarded. The company had failed to guard dangerous parts of the machine to prevent access for more than seven years.


Müller UK & Ireland Group of Minsterley, Shrewsbury pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision of Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The company was fined £66,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,024.20.


Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Andrew Johnson said: “This preventable incident could have easily been avoided had the company properly assessed and applied effective control measures to minimise the risks from dangerous parts of the machinery.


“The dangers associated with in-running nips are well known, and a wealth of advice and guidance is freely available from HSE and other organisations.”


10


www.tomorrowshs.com


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  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60