Two incidents at the Haverhill site of Jan Cavelle Furniture Company have led to three companies being fined for health and safety failings.

Ipswich Crown Court heard how in the first instance an employee of the company sustained serious injuries when operating a biscuit cutter and the rotating blade made contact with his hand, cutting his thumb to the bone.

The second incident occurred when an employee sustained injury to his hand whilst using the cutter of an overhead router and received serious lacerations and crush injuries to his right index finger.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incidents which occurred on 28 February 2014 and 2 June 2014 found that both incidents occurred due to the operators adopting unsafe working practices. This was due to a lack of training, inadequate supervision and insufficient and unsuitable risk assessments.

In 2013, Worksafe Training & Consultancy Ltd had been commissioned by Jan Cavelle Furniture Company Ltd to review all risk assessments and work procedures and to provide updated risk assessments and procedures where required.

This consultancy subsequently sub-contracted this work to Tony Baker of Leading Health & Safety Consultants Ltd who provided risk assessments and recommendations relevant to both the biscuit cutter and the overhead router. The risk assessments and procedures provided by Mr Baker were neither suitable nor sufficient to control risks arising from the operation of these two machines.

Jan Cavelle Furniture Company Limited, of Rookwood Way, Haverhill, Suffolk, pleaded guilty to two counts of breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and was fined £18,000 and was ordered to pay costs of £4,000.

Workplace Training and Consultancy Limited, St Andrews Street South, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, were found guilty at trial to breaching two counts of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and was fined £22,500 and was ordered to pay costs of £22,500.

Leading Health and Safety Consultants Limited, of Chaplin Walk, Great Cornard, Sudbury, Suffolk, pleaded guilty to breaching two counts of Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and was fined £5,000 and was ordered to pay costs of £5,000.

For further information on equipment and machinery visit: http://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/planning-organising-lifting-operations.htm^[1]

Notes to Editors:

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. It aims to reduce work-related death, injury and ill health. It does so through research, information and advice, promoting training; new or revised regulations and codes of practice, and working with local authority partners by inspection, investigation and enforcement. www.hse.gov.uk^[2]
2. More about the legislation referred to in this case can be found at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ ^[3]  and guidance at
3. HSE news releases are available at http://press.hse.gov.uk

An electropolishing company based in Hampshire has been fined after a worker suffered chemical burns.

Basingstoke Magistrates’ Court heard how Keith Brown, a 51-year-old worker at Poligrat (UK) Limited was told by his manager to dispose of some waste cleaning chemicals at their Aldershot site. The method agreed was to pour caustic pearl granules into the top of an intermediate bulk container (IBC) containing acids to help neutralise the chemicals inside.

It was during this process that an exothermic reaction occurred, the container became unstable and erupted over the worker, throwing him to the ground.

His glasses were blown off and he suffered alkaline burns to his eyelids and ulcers to both corneas, including grazing and burns to his legs.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident which occurred on 13 February 2015 found that the activity and substances used in the process were not suitably or sufficiently risk assessed.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Andrew Johnson said: “The use of an IBC as a reaction vessel was wholly inappropriate. IBC’s are designed for the storage of a range of substances. They are not designed for use as a chemical reactor. Other safer reasonably practicable options were available, such as using a waste management company to remove and safely dispose of the chemicals.”

Poligrat (UK) Limited, of Waverley Lane, Farnham, Surrey, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, and Regulation 3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, and was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay costs of £1,072.

For further information on COSHH visit: http://www.hse.gov.uk/toolbox/harmful/coshh.htm^[1]

Notes to Editors:

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. It aims to reduce work-related death, injury and ill health. It does so through research, information and advice, promoting training; new or revised regulations and codes of practice, and working with local authority partners by inspection, investigation and enforcement. www.hse.gov.uk^[2]
2. More about the legislation referred to in this case can be found at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ ^[3]
3. HSE news releases are available at http://press.hse.gov.uk

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has today informed Foodles Production (UK) Ltd that it will be prosecuted over an incident in which actor Harrison Ford was seriously injured during the filming of Star Wars: The Forces Awakens.

Foodles Production (UK) Ltd is based in Queen Caroline Street, London, and will appear at High Wycombe Magistrates Court on 12 May 2016 to face four charges.

Mr Ford suffered a broken leg and other injuries when he was struck by a heavy hydraulic metal door on the set of the Millennium Falcon. The incident happened on 12 June 2014 at Pinewood Studios.

A spokesman for HSE said:

“HSE has today informed Foodles Production (UK) Ltd that it will be prosecuted over four alleged breaches of health and safety law. The charges relate to an incident during filming of Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens, which left Harrison Ford with serious injuries after he was hit by a heavy hydraulic door.

“By law, employers must take reasonable steps to protect workers – this is as true on a film set as a factory floor. We have investigated thoroughly and believe that we have sufficient evidence to bring the case to court.”

Foodles Production (UK) Ltd is the company responsible for producing Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens and under health and safety law for managing the risks created during production.

Notes to Editors

1. The four alleged breaches are:
   • Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which states: “It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.”
   • Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, which states: “It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.”
   • Regulation 3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, which states “Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of (a)the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work; and (b) the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking, for the purpose of identifying the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions and by Part II of the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997.”
   • Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, which states: “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.”
2.  Now that criminal proceedings have commenced your attention is drawn to the fact that the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act apply to this matter. You will understand that it is not appropriate for HSE to give media interviews until court proceedings are concluded.
3.  You are advised to check the time and date of the hearing with the Court nearer the time to ensure that the case has not been put back.
4.  The Code for Crown Prosecutors ^[1] sets out the principles for prosecutors to follow when they make enforcement decisions. HSE’s approach to prosecutions is set out in its enforcement policy statement^[2].

Multi-national chemical producer, Solvay Solutions UK Limited, has been fined after a dangerous gas was released into the atmosphere causing disruption to the M5 and thousands of homes nearby.

Warley Magistrates’ Court heard how an uncontrolled release of dangerous substances put both employees and members of the public at risk. During the incident the police set up road closures in the vicinity of the site; local sections of the M5 were closed by the Highways Agency,  and an estimated 4,500 people were asked to stay indoors for 2-3 hours.

The dangerous gas was phosphorus and phosphine which, upon contact with air, spontaneously ignited to produce phosphorous pentoxide. This reacted with the moisture in the air to produce a mist of phosphoric acid which drifted to a densely populated area.

An investigation carried out by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident, which occurred  at Trinity Street, Oldbury on 2 January 2009, found that a welded steel bar (‘rodder’) failed at the weld and broke in two. One piece fell back and the other piece pulled clear, leaving an opening through which the dangerous substance escaped.

The incident was reported to the European Commission.

Solvay Solutions UK Limited, formerly Rhodia UK Limited, was fined a total of £333,000 and ordered to pay costs of £110,000 after pleading guilty to an offence under Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Solvay had failed to properly assess and act upon the risk of the rodder failing.

HSE inspector Kay Brookes, said: “This was a long and complex case, but at the heart of it lay the fact that this company’s actions caused an incident that affected the public and workers.

“The loss of containment and failure in Solvay’s systems caused huge disruption and the outcomes could have been far worse.

“This case should serve as a warning to other companies dealing with harmful substances that they need to get their processes absolutely right, in order to ensure the safety of the public, if they don’t they will face the consequences.”

Marc Lidderth, area environment manager for the Environment Agency that supported HSE’s prosecution said: “In our role as environmental regulator and as part of the COMAH Competent Authority, we fully support HSE’s action in bringing this case.

“Environmental and health and safety law set out clear requirements for operators to make sure they take the appropriate steps to run their sites safely, so that people and the environment are properly protected.

“This case is an example of how we take direct action against companies that fail to do this, break the law and create an unacceptable risk to the community.”

For more information about control of dangerous substances visit: http://www.hse.gov.uk/coshh/^[1]

Notes to Editors: 

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. It aims to reduce work-related death, injury and ill health. It does so through research, information and advice, promoting training; new or revised regulations and codes of practice, and working with local authority partners by inspection, investigation and enforcement. www.hse.gov.uk^[2]
2. More about the legislation referred to in this case can be found at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ ^[3]
3. HSE news releases are available at http://press.hse.gov.uk^[4]

Two building companies have been fined after a man was seriously injured when a structure that allows water to flow under roads collapsed on him.

Maidstone Crown Court heard that Kent County Council appointed Enterprise to replace an old, damaged, brick culvert under Tudely Lane Tonbridge. Enterprise in turn appointed Topbond to do the majority of the work.

A culvert is an embedded structure, usually surround by soil and can be made from steel, brick or reinforced concrete or other material and is used to transport water underground from one side of a road or railway to another.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuting told the court that on 27 January 2012 water was being pumped out of the work area when three workers including 63-year-old Michael Skitt of Kingsnorth, Ashford, entered the area between two culverts in order to clear a channel for the remaining water to flow toward the pump head.

They had begun to clear loose material, but had not started digging.

Shortly after they entered the area, the old brick culvert collapsed. One man jumped clear, another was hit but managed to release himself, but Michael Skitt was trapped and injured.

Mr Skitt suffered multiple injuries including shoulder blade breaks, an open shin break and a dislocated knee. Ongoing issues with his foot may see him need further operations. Mr Skitt spent 26 days in hospital and has now had to give up full time work and walks with a stick.

HSE said the stability of the structure was not assessed adequately, nor sufficient planning undertaken to ensure adequate control measures were in place.

Its investigation found that originally the old culvert was to be totally demolished early in the work, when this was changed the implications of uncovering half of the damaged culvert and therefore loading it unevenly and undermining it were not managed.

Although culvert repair/replacement is a relatively unusual construction job, the collapse of excavations and structures is common and the court heard the defendants in the case were made aware of the potential of collapse by the original designers/engineers several times.

The culvert could have been demolished early in the work, failing this, there are a number of commonly used ways to support structures during construction work.

Enterprise (AOL) Ltd of the Sherard Building, Edmund Halley Road, Oxford admitted breaches of section 22 (1) and 28 (1) of the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2007. They were fined a total of £90,000 and ordered to pay an additional £22,876 costs.

Construction firm Topbond PLC, of Oyster Quay, Castle Road, Sittingbourne, Kent admitted breaches of section 13 (1) and 28 (1) of the same regulations. They were also ordered to pay £22,876.60 costs and were fined £70,000.

After the case, HSE inspector Nicola Wellard said: “This is a sad case that has changed at least one man’s life for ever. The culvert was being replaced because it had been damaged previously.

“Just this one piece of information should have been enough to ensure both contractors assessed the stability of the culvert throughout the work and took appropriate measures to ensure people were protected from the risk of collapse. These risks are well known and the fact that the two other men escaped without serious injury was just pure luck, this could easily have been a multiple fatality.”

Notes to Editors: 

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. It aims to reduce work-related death, injury and ill health. It does so through research, information and advice, promoting training; new or revised regulations and codes of practice, and working with local authority partners by inspection, investigation and enforcement. www.hse.gov.uk^[1]
2. More about the legislation referred to in this case can be found at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ ^[2]
3. HSE news releases are available at http://press.hse.gov.uk^[3]

A building products manufacturer was fined after a worker suffered serious cement burns on his first day of work.

Leicester Magistrates’ Court heard how a 21-year-old inexperienced agency worker – on his first day of full time employment – was exposed to alkaline cement slurry by standing in a drainage pit with inadequate Personal Protective Equipment.

The young worker suffered chemical burns to his feet and ankles. He required plastic surgery and his feet and lower legs are scarred for life. He was in hospital for three weeks.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive into the incident which occurred on 28th April 2014 at Station Road, Stoney Stanton found that the company had not appreciated that slurry from cured concrete dust posed the same risks as that from cement or wet uncured concrete.

They had no risk assessment for the slurry or suitable and sufficient controls to eliminate, reduce or control the risks. A mechanical system to remove slurry from the water pit would have prevented these life changing injuries.

In his statement provided to the Court, the worker said: “A year after the accident my feet are scarred. My right foot is worse than my left. I find it difficult still to walk. I don’t know how my feet will improve in the long term. I wouldn’t like anyone to go through what I have had to go through”.

Stressline Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,121.

HSE inspector Dr Richenda Dixon said after the hearing: “The risks from concrete and cement are well known in this industry. Companies need to protect agency workers as they are as likely to have injures in the first six months of employment as in the rest of their working lives.”

Notes to Editors:

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. It aims to reduce work-related death, injury and ill health. It does so through research, information and advice, promoting training; new or revised regulations and codes of practice, and working with local authority partners by inspection, investigation and enforcement. hse.gov.uk^[1]

More about the legislation referred to in this case can be found at: legislation.gov.uk/ ^[2] and guidance at

http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/healthrisks/hazardous-substances/cement.htm^[3]

HSE news releases are available at http://press.hse.gov.uk

A Cheshire coachbuilding firm has been fined after a worker sustained injuries to his hand when using an unguarded planer.

On 9 December 2013, a 21-year-employee at S. Cartwright and Sons (Coachbuilders) Ltd, was feeding wood over the planer when his fingers touched the blades, resulting in the amputation of his little finger and injuries to his right hand that later required skin grafts.

A Health and safety Executive (HSE) investigation found the guards on the machine were not in the correct position. The injured worker had previously used the machine with others to help with guiding wood, but had never used it on his own prior to the incident. 

Trafford Magistrates’ Court heard the incident could have been prevented had machinery guarding been in place, a control measure identified in the company’s own risk assessment.

The firm did not ensure management systems were in place to achieve sustained compliance to safety measures. The company also failed to monitor and supervise untrained employees entering the woodwork shop.

The court heard the company had been prosecuted three times by HSE over safety failings which included two fatal accidents and have received 12 enforcement notices since 2001, including an Improvement Notice in 2006 regarding no suitable and sufficient risk assessment.

HSE inspector Adam McMahon said after the hearing: “A man suffered life changing injuries which could have been prevented had the company’s safety systems been properly managed. The management of health and safety systems is paramount in order for companies to ensure employees safety, wellbeing and morale”.

Cartwright and Sons (Coachbuilders) Limited of Atlantic Street, Broadheath, Altrincham, Cheshire pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and was fined £50,000 with £5890 costs.

Notes to editors 

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. It aims to reduce work-related death, injury and ill health. It does so through research, information and advice, promoting training; new or revised regulations and codes of practice, and working with local authority partners by inspection, investigation and enforcement. www.hse.gov.uk^[1]
2. More about the legislation referred to in this case can be found at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ ^[2]
3. More information on the safe use of hand fed planning machines can be found at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/wis17.pdf ^[3]
4. HSE news releases are available at http://press.hse.gov.uk

A company which manufactures office equipment has been fined after a trainee worker was injured when he was crushed by a metal folding machine.

Newport Magistrates’ Court heard how an employee of F C Brown (Steel Equipment) Limited of Newport had entered the guarded area of a metal folding machine to fix a fault. Whilst in this area he was crushed between the fixed body of the machine and the machine’s moving manipulator arm, causing serious injury.

The incident shattered all of the worker’s right-hand side ribs and broke two ribs on his left side. He was in hospital for two months.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident, which occurred on 21 May 2014, found that there was insufficient measures taken by the company to control the risks associated with its maintenance activities.

F C Brown (Steel Equipment) Limited, of Caswell Way, Reevesland Industrial Estate, Newport, was fined a total of £14,000, with costs of £9,401, after pleading guilty to an offence under Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

Speaking after the hearing, HSE inspector Lee Schilling said: “The injury could easily have been avoided had F C Brown (Steel Equipment) Limited provided sufficient training and an adequate level of supervision to make sure safety measures were in place when machinery maintenance activities were being undertaken.”

For more information about machinery maintenance visit: http://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/maintenance.htm^[1]

Notes to Editors:

1. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. It aims to reduce work-related death, injury and ill health. It does so through research, information and advice, promoting training; new or revised regulations and codes of practice, and working with local authority partners by inspection, investigation and enforcement. www.hse.gov.uk^[2]
2. More about the legislation referred to in this case can be found at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ ^[3]
3. HSE news releases are available at http://press.hse.gov.uk