Company Fined £100k – How Safety PAL Could Have Prevented This

Details of Incident

A linen services company has been fined £100,000 after a man’s hand had to be amputated.

The injured party suffered serious injuries to his hand after it became trapped in machinery at the laundry. The injuries were so severe that his hand was later surgically amputated above the wrist. The 45-year-old had been investigating a fault on a large commercial dryer when he was caught by the machine. He had been working on a step ladder, and he lost his balance, reaching out to prevent a fall, resulting in his arm being crushed by the mechanism. He was left trapped and in extreme pain, as he tried to call for help.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the Company had not fully assessed the risks involved, had not provided suitable guarding, and failed to put in place an adequate safe system of work.

After the hearing, the HSE inspector said: “These injuries are truly life-changing. This serious incident and its devastating consequences could have been avoided if basic safeguards had been put in place. Here at the HSE, we would like to highlight that all employers should make sure they properly assess and apply effective control measures to minimise the risk from dangerous parts of machinery.”

Link to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) press release

Regulations

Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 states:

Dangerous parts of machinery

11.—(1) Every employer shall ensure that measures are taken in accordance with paragraph (2) which are effective—
(a)to prevent access to any dangerous part of machinery or to any rotating stock-bar; or
(b)to stop the movement of any dangerous part of machinery or rotating stock-bar before any part of a person enters a danger zone.

Root Cause

Accident investigations should consider why human failures occurred. Finding the underlying (or latent, root) causes is the key to preventing similar accidents.

It is clear from the HSE press release information the Company failed to:

• Fully assess the risk involved with the activity.
• Had not provided suitable guarding around the machines’ moving parts.
• Failed to put in place an adequate, safe system of work.

The reason for the prosecution breaching regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 was not down to workers’ human factors but a failure in the management falling below the required standards.

There are human factors, forced errors, and knowledge of the management as in how much they fulfilled their obligations under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. During the investigation, the HSE must not have seen this as a sole failure of any responsible person failing to discharge a duty to which he is subject by virtue of Section 2-7 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974; otherwise, the breach would have been under Section 33(1).

It can also be assumed it was a simple lack of knowledge, information and training of the managers and supervisors collectively in implementing:

• A safe system of work
• Equipment inspections as per PUWER
• The control measures result from a risk assessment.

As with most of the HSE prosecutions, the root cause is lack of information, knowledge, training and responsibility, and only once a Body Corporate or Individual Director is faced with the fact that they have not done So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable do they look for change.

How Safety PAL would have prevented this

Risk Assessments

Risk Assessment (RA) can be completed in Safety PAL per the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 Regulation 3.

The RA is then added to the work activity along with the Safety requirements such as:

• Working at Height Safety videos
• Company Inductions
• How to work safely.
• Using ladders
• Using Scaffolds

The work permit is auto-created from the job and site information, and before a worker can sign into the activity, Safety PAL needs to confirm the worker has read and understood the RA and completed all the activity safety videos.

Within Safety PAL, you can complete a Competence Assessment (Recorded under their CPD profile), ensuring when selecting the workers you know which ones have all the suitable and sufficient knowledge, information, instruction, and training to complete the task safely.
** Creating your Safe System of Work.

Managing plant and equipment as per the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and specifically, in this case, the access to dangerous parts of the machine. Safety PAL Plant and Equipment module ensures each piece of plant and equipment is listed including:

• Equipment certifications such as PUWER and LOLER,
• Equipment manuals.
• Drawings identifying safe work areas and perimeter.
• Safety Precautions and Safe system of work.
• Inspections can be completed before the equipment is operated as per the HSE guidance.
• Machine defects are recorded and reported to service and maintenance managers in your organisation.
• Directors and other responsible persons have a complete overview of the plant and equipment.

** Complying with the requirements of Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998

In short, you need to meet the required standards, and Safety PAL is the only known system to incorporate the above developed from what the Law requires and more, and available multilingual.