FEATURE HAZARDOUS AREAS & SAFETY MANAGE RISK BY KEEPING SAFETY IN SIGHT
Natalie Puce, health & safety partner at law firm BLM, explores the impact the revised sentencing guidelines continue to have on organisations and individuals within the manufacturing industry
T
he revised sentencing guidelines for health and safety offences, introduced
in February 2016, meant greatly increased fines for offences across all sectors, including manufacturing. These new guidelines mean that organisational safety has been put into sharp focus and hefty fines are promised for those companies failing to protect employees against known and preventable safety risks. The guidelines require courts to consider
culpability, the seriousness and likelihood of harm caused or posed together with turnover. A business with a turnover in excess of £50 million could face fines of up to £10 million for the most serious offences, whilst corporate manslaughter charges could incur fines reaching £20 million. Since the guidelines were introduced, fines have seismically increased. The ten most significant fines handed down total £30.4 million. Whilst large organisations have grabbed
the headlines for the huge fines, the majority of prosecutions are brought against much smaller businesses; these may lack the manpower or financial resources to adequately fund well- structured safety management, and often do not have the same access to health and safety information, resources or support. The fines are commensurate with turnover and whilst smaller businesses rarely face seven figure fines, they can be subject to fines running into the hundreds of thousands. No court sets out to destroy a business and its ability to remain viable following a fine is taken into consideration; however, this does not mean the fine will not be punitive and the impact must be felt across the business. Culpability can scale the size of a fine
considerably, sometimes from seven figures to a lower six figure sum. If an
Natalie Puce said: “In some companies, a culture of confusion, or even disinterest, can exist in response to health & safety regulation. It is therefore vital to tackle this culture from the top down, and manage regulations in a proactive manner which leads to real change for the safety of staff”
organisation admits guilt in the event of a breach, but is able to demonstrate and evidence a progressive approach to health & safety (e.g. regular risk assessments, minutes for meetings discussing existing risks and how to solve them), this can count in reducing the level of culpability, and therefore the size of the fine. In addition, last summer the Sentencing
Council announced increased sentences for individuals convicted of gross negligence manslaughter (GNM). GNM was initially excluded from the 2016 guidelines, and this new guidance adopts a more punitive approach to sentences; with the most serious cases seeing individuals face up to 18 years in prison – current sentences for these cases rarely breach the ten year period. Significantly, the sentences are retrospective, so will apply to all cases heard before the courts after November 2018, irrespective of the date of offence. Fines for manufacturing health and
safety breaches have totalled over £42 million since 2016. The largest fines include £3.8 million to Explore Manufacturing and Select Plant Hire Company. The two companies were found liable for the death of an employee in
STEADY STATE BEACON TAKES CONTROL OF BRIGHTNESS
BEKA associates has introduced a low cost, intrinsically safe, steady state beacon which complements the company’s intrinsically safe flashing beacons range. The steady state BA386S beacon is available with a bright red, amber, green, blue or white continuous output. It has an IP66 enclosure with an internal brightness control and suits hazardous area process or machine status indication. The beacon has IECEx, ATEX and FM Ex ia certification and may be
powered from most certified 24V Zener barriers, galvanic isolators or certified associated apparatus. It may be installed in all Zones and used with most common hazardous area gases. If slightly less brightness is acceptable, a further cost reduction can
be achieved by powering two BA386S steady state beacons from one Zener barrier or galvanic isolator. BEKA associates
14 MAY 2019 | PROCESS & CONTROL
www.beka.co.uk
2017, after he was thrown from a mobile elevating platform. Fatalities and life-changing injuries are
a common feature of manufacturing health & safety fines; of the five highest- value fines, three involved workplace deaths. Amputations are also common in the industry, and for ‘very large’ or ‘large’ manufacturers, this could result in fines in the millions if they are found in breach of health & safety regulation. For example, Tata UK was fined £1.98
million after two employees lost fingers and hands after a machine was inadequately guarded, being sentenced under Section 2 of the Health and Safety At Work Act 1974. Just over a year later, the company suffered another significant penalty after being found in breach of the same section of the same act (and Section 3 (1) also) for an incident which left five workers exposed to the risk of serious injury of death from a toxic vapour cloud; this time, it was fined £930,000. The risk of harm is widespread across
multiple operations in manufacturing, so is a feature of the guidelines. This means organisations that put employees or the public at risk can be prosecuted, irrespective of whether there is an actual injury. The more employees exposed to the risk is taken into consideration, as is the length of time that risk has existed. It is therefore essential that thorough, pro- active risk assessments are undertaken and regularly reviewed. As well as the use of heavy machinery,
there are other risks in manufacturing, from working from height to use of hazardous substances. Manufacturers should also consider and control the risk of harm, not only for employees, but also for users of their product. Stress in the workplace bubbles under
the radar in many industries, including manufacturing. The HSE recently developed a toolkit to help companies address and support employees experiencing stress-related conditions and though there is currently no formal regulation in place to address this (beyond the Health & Safety At Work Act 1974’s umbrella requirement of an employers’ ‘duty to protect’), this public declaration of interest suggests it may be a matter of time before measures are introduced. The last three years have sent a stark
message to the manufacturing industry, and engagement with safety issues and education across the industry is key to ensuring that the safety statistics improve. Managing risk must be a priority – associated support networks may help reinforce the ongoing and critical messages around safety.
BLM
www.blmlaw.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
