Breach of Britain’s Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (as amended) (PUWER) – failure to provide adequate machinery guarding.
PUWER Regulation 11(1)(b) Every employer shall ensure that measures are taken …. guards etc …. to stop the movement of any dangerous part of machinery … before any part of a person enters a danger zone.
See Britain HSE’s Press Release.
Update: another machinery guarding failure.
Update: another machinery guarding fine (25th Sept). This time it is a breach of PUWER Regulation 11(1)(a) and (b), and the employee had three fingers severed in an inadequately guarded dust extraction machine.
Update: another severed finger injury (1st Oct). This time enforcement is under s. 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 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.”
Update: another serious hand injury (11th Oct). This time enforcement is under s. 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 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.”
Update: (16th Oct) more hand injuries, this time it’s a fruit processing company, and the machinery guarding safety failings relate to roller conveyors. Enforcement was under Regulations 9(1) and 11(1) of PUWER and s. 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
Update: (17th Oct) another finger injury, this time it is dough making in a pizza factory. Enforcement was under Regulation 11(1) of PUWER.
Update: (18th Oct) a severe arm injury, in a sawmill in Scotland, due to entrapment in poorly guarded machinery. The investigation concluded that the company:
– failed to properly assess the risks to employees by inadequate guarding of the machine and by a fence that was too close to and too short to protect people close to the machine;
– failed to provide and maintain a safe machine and system of work for employees engaged in stacking and banding planks;
– failed to provide adequate safeguarding measures to stop the machine’s operation in the event a person got too close to the machine’s moving parts;
– failed to prevent the storage of banding strips on the boundary fence where they could fall through and lead to injury to anyone attempting to retrieve them.
In Scotland the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has sole responsibility for the raising of criminal proceedings for breaches of health and safety legislation.
Update: (24th Oct) this time an arm is lost, in the recycling sector, due to it having become trapped between a roller and the belt of a moving conveyor.
Update: (24th Oct) another arm injury in waste recycling equipment, this time it is an incorrectly guarded second-hand cardboard baler.
Update: (25th Oct) another serious arm injury in a conveyor, this time the recycling company had no safe system of cleaning the rollers and no risk assessment carried out. And another here, again it’s injuries to fingers this time from an unguarded print roller.
Pingback: More Machinery Guarding Fines | Cardinal Environment Limited's Blog