Ask Abeceder a question.
Visit the Abeceder shop for our collection of business related books, and audio-visual resources
|
Abeceder Shop transactions are processed by:
The Abeceder Shop accepts:
Abeceder is a member of:
|
|
 |
News Review
The Abeceder press review highlights stories from around the world.
Send Us Your News
If you would like to send us a new item, please complete our online form.
Fine for employer after employee loses fingertips - 02-05-2008 |
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has warned businesses to make sure that workers and contractors are properly trained to carry out risk assessments and operate safe systems of work, as two companies were fined after a worker lost the tips of two fingers at a paper recycling plant in Greenwich.
RCP Macpress (UK) Ltd, of Bridges Business Park, Horsehay, Telford, was fined £15,000 with costs of £2,496, after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. SCA Recycling UK Ltd, of New Hythe Lane, Aylesford, Kent, was also fined £15,000 with costs of £3,042 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974..
Loraine Charles, the HSE Inspector who investigated the case, said:
"This incident demonstrates the importance of ensuring that employees are properly trained to carry out risk assessments and to properly operate permit-to-work systems - not just how to fill in forms. Risk assessments and permit-to-work systems are worthless unless companies make sure that employees are aware of what the hazards actually are and, therefore, carry out their work accordingly."
On 23 July 2004, James Adams, and another engineer from RCP Macpress engineers, were at SCA Recycling UK Ltd's premises in Herringham Road, Greenwich, London to repair a large waste paper recycling machine, known as a shredder or hogger. The shredder had been damaged when the fork of a forklift truck was inadvertently loaded into it hidden within a load of waste paper. Although the engineers filled in their company's risk assessment form before starting the job, they had only been instructed on how to fill in the form, and not how to actually make an assessment of the risks. When the panel of the shredder that allowed access to the damaged area failed to open as easily as the engineers had expected, they resorted to attempting to push the panel open using a hydraulic jack able to exert a force sufficient to lift 25 tonnes - the estimated weight of the panel being approximately 100kg. The panel opened suddenly, but immediately shut again, trapping Mr Adams' right ring finger and little finger resulting in the loss of the tips of both fingers.
Loraine Charles continued:
"A properly implemented permit-to-work system would have ensured that there was a detailed methodology for the work to be undertaken on the shredder, including how access was to be gained to area that was damaged. RCP Macpress (UK) Ltd, should have told the engineers that the permit remained valid only as long as the work proceeded according to this methodology. Had this happened, as soon as the access panel failed to open as expected, the engineers would have been compelled to return to the permit issuer, and both companies would have had the opportunity to evaluate what steps were needed to be taken to ensure that the work could be done safely."
The HSE investigation revealed that SCA Ltd had a number of types of permit-to-work documents and a permit was issued to the RCP Macpress engineers. But SCA had failed to ensure that employees who issued permits had been properly trained and did not have a clear understanding of how the permit-to-work system should have been operated.
| Safe working with machines
|
View our editorial policy click here.
|
|
|
