Tamworth shopkeeper fined for selling out-of-date food | This is Tamworth

Share

Tamworth shopkeeper fined for selling out-of-date food | This is Tamworth: AN eight-year-old girl complained about the taste of a lunchtime snack bought from a Tamworth shop – before her mother discovered it was EIGHT days out of date.
The Kraft Lunchables item was purchased from the Costcutter shop at 15-16 Hospital Street – located opposite Moorgate Primary School – on Thursday, July 12.

Visit safety photos

Visit safetyphotoFor The Best Free Safety Photos On The Web

“HSE will not hesitate to prosecute companies who put their employees at risk in this way.”

Share

An Essex packaging company has been fined after one of its employees sustained a serious hand injury on an unguarded laminating machine.

Gary Dean, of Redstock Road, Southend-on-Sea, had the skin on the palm of his left hand torn away in the incident at Frith’s Flexible Packaging, in Southend, on 26 September 2011.

Sourthend Magistrates’ Court heard today (28 November) that he was using a glue laminating machine when he noticed an indent mark on a finished product. He put his left hand into the machine via an unguarded portal to scrape away dried glue residue from a roller that had caused the blemish, but his whole hand was drawn into the roller and the palm of his left hand was de-gloved.

Mr Dean was hospitalised for two days and required emergency surgery. This was followed by several months of physiotherapy to regain movement between his thumb and first finger, before he finally returned to work after two and a half months.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigated the incident and found that Mr Dean had removed an interlocked guard on the laminating machine some six years earlier to allow him to set the machine up more easily. He and other employees, including his supervisor, had used the machine without the guard ever since.

Had the guard been in place they would have been unable to access dangerous moving parts, including the roller, while the machine was in operation.

HSE inspectors also found that although a risk assessment and a safe system of work were available for the laminator they were very basic, did not adequately set out the control measures or troubleshooting guidance; and staff were largely unaware they existed.

Frith’s Flexible Packaging was served an Improvement Notice by HSE to review their training plan, incorporating revised risk assessments and a safe system of work.

Follow-up enquiries revealed that a second laminating machine at the site had also had its guard removed, and that the company had failed to address this issue following Mr Dean’s incident. HSE therefore served another Improvement Notice for guarding requirements and a third requiring ‘competent person’ training to enable the company to properly manage its health and safety responsibilities.

Frith’s Flexible Packaging Ltd, of Coopers Way, Temple Farm Industrial Estate, Southend-on-Sea, was fined £8,000 and ordered to pay £2,046 in costs after pleading guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Sam Thomson said:

“This incident was entirely preventable. Guards are placed on machines for a good reason and should not be removed for convenience. The fact the offending guard here had been missing for a number of years is particularly disturbing.

“Hand injuries from printing and laminating machines are a well known risk within this industry, and the company had been given previous advice on similar guarding matters. So measures should have been in place to protect Mr Dean and other workers.

“HSE will not hesitate to prosecute companies who put their employees at risk in this way.”

For further information about safety when using printing and laminating machinery, visit http://www.hse.gov.uk/printing/machine/index.htm.

via Packaging company prosecuted after worker injured.

Visit safetyphotoFor The Best Free Safety Photos On The Web

The Accused was aware that the existing fence contained asbestos – Maasprop Pty Ltd

Share

Maasprop Pty Ltd

Description of Breach(es)

Being the main contractor at a workplace, failed to ensure that asbestos work at the workplace involving more than 10 m2 of non-friable asbestos-containing material was done by the holder of an unrestricted licence or a restricted licence or a person employed or otherwise engaged by the holder of an unrestricted licence or a restricted licence contrary to regulation 5.45(2A) of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 (WA) (Regulations).
Background Details

As at 21 and 22 September 2011, the Accused’s name was Fencing Unlimited Pty Ltd (ACN 105 353 580). The Accused changed its name to Maasprop Pty Ltd (ACN 105 353 580) on 17 July 2012.

As at 21 and 22 September 2011, the Accused was a corporation principally engaged in the manufacture of fencing. The Accused engaged subcontractors to remove existing fencing and install new fencing.

The Accused itself was engaged by the owner of 6 Houston Crescent, Bunbury, to remove the existing corrugated cement fence on the boundary between 6 and 8 Houston Crescent and replace it with colourbond fencing. The existing fence was at least 26 m long and approximately 1.4 m above ground and 0.6 m below ground.

The Accused was aware that the existing fence contained asbestos. The Accused did not hold an asbestos removal licence under the Regulations.

The Accused subcontracted Donald Graham (t/a Distinctive Fencing) to remove the existing fence and install the new fence. Although Mr Graham indicated to the Accused that he was capable of removing asbestos fencing and that he had done so in the past, in fact Mr Graham did not hold an asbestos removal licence under the Regulations. The Accused failed to enquire whether, or otherwise confirm that, Mr Graham held the relevant licence.

On 21 September 2011 Mr Graham began work on removing the existing fence by breaking off the aboveground portion, leaving the belowground portion unremoved and scattering small fragments of fencing on the ground. This is contrary to Parts 9.5.2 and 9.10 of the Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos 2nd edition (Code).

Overnight from 21 to 22 September 2011, Mr Graham left the removed aboveground portion of fencing uncovered in the backyard of 6 Houston Crescent. This is contrary to Part 9.10 of the Code.

Mr Graham continued work on the remaining portions of the existing fence on 22 September 2011. On neither 21 nor 22 September 2011 did Mr Graham wet the fence to prevent generation of asbestos dust, contrary to Part 9.5 of the Code; nor did he wear appropriate respiratory protective equipment, contrary to Part 9.7.1 of the Code, or erect barriers and warning signs in the area, contrary to Part 9.2 of the Code.

In fact, at the time Mr Graham was entirely unaware of the existence of the Code.

When the Accused was contacted by WorkSafe on 22 September 2011, it immediately engaged a licensed operator to remedy the situation and complete the removal of the existing fence.

In a voluntary interview, a director of the Accused (who is no longer associated with the Accused) explained that Mr Graham was originally engaged because the Accused’s preferred operator was not immediately available.

The Accused cooperated with WorkSafe with all stages of the investigation and prosecution.

via Prosecution Details | Prosecutions Database | Department of Commerce.

Visit safetyphotoFor The Best Free Safety Photos On The Web

Rhino did not have fall injury prevention system

Share

Rhino (WA) Pty Ltd

Description of Breach(es)

Being the main contractor at a workplace at which there was a risk that a person could fall 3 or more metres from an edge, other than an edge referred to in regulation 3.55(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Regulations 1996 (Regulations), failed to ensure that either: edge protection that complied with regulation 3.55(5) was provided and kept in place; or a fall injury prevention system was provided and in operation, contrary to regulation 3.55(2).
Background Details

The Accused is a corporation that trades as Action Asbestos Removals, an asbestos removal contractor.

The Accused was engaged to remove the asbestos roof of a warehouse located at 10 Ballantyne Road, Kewdale (Workplace).

The Accused employed a number of workers to perform this work. One employee was the on-site supervisor.

On 21 March 2011 a number of workers were working on the sloped roof of the Workplace. Access to the roof was via an elevated work platform (EWP; also known as a scissor lift). An employee (not the site supervisor) who was responsible for safety and health measures was supervising work on the roof.

The removal process involved the manual lifting of asbestos roof sheets. The sheets were then placed on a pallet supported by the tines of a telehandler (an extendable forklift) operated from ground level by the site supervisor and positioned so as to overhang the edge of the roof.

Removal was proceeding in “zones” laterally along the roof. Once all sheets in one zone had been removed, workers would move across to the next zone.

While the workers were removing sheets from a particular zone, the EWP was positioned beside the telehandler with the intent of providing an edge barrier for that zone. Workers had been instructed by the site supervisor and the employee supervising work on the roof to stay within the bounds of the telehandler and the EWP. No other edge protection was provided.

Two employees were performing a task outside the current work zone. In doing so, they went beyond the telehandler and EWP, and within approximately 2 metres of the unprotected edge of the roof, which was 6.1 metres above the ground.

None of the workers were wearing harnesses or other fall injury prevention systems (FIPS). Although the Accused could have provided FIPS if requested by the workers, those FIPS were not on site. Neither the supervisor nor the employee supervising work on the roof required the workers to wear the FIPS.

via Prosecution Details | Prosecutions Database | Department of Commerce.

Visit safetyphotoFor The Best Free Safety Photos On The Web

UPDATED: Jas Bowman and Sons Ltd was prosecuted by HSE for not doing enough to protect people working at height

Share

A global ingredients company has been fined for safety failings after two workers were seriously injured in separate incidents a year apart at its UK manufacturing base near Hitchin.

Jas Bowman and Sons Ltd was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for not doing enough to protect people working at height at Ickleford Mill in Ickleford.

In the first incident, on 7 July 2009, a maintenance engineer fell more than two metres while attempting to clean flour product from inside an elevated conveyor. He stood on the frame of a nearby machine to remove upper guarding on the conveyor but slipped, fracturing his right shoulder blade and a vertebra in his spine when he hit the floor below.

A year later, on 15 July 2010, an electrical sub contractor fell down a lift shaft while carrying out maintenance work on a jammed second floor lift door. A panel reading indicated the lift was at second floor level. He manually opened the door by overriding a release mechanism and stepped in but fell into the shaft because the lift car had returned to the ground floor.

He was following instructions from two Bowman employees at the time and fractured his skull, developed a cranial blood clot, severed his right ear, which was almost completely detached from his head, and sustained extensive bruising as a result of the fall. He was off work for 18 months as a result of his injuries.

Cambridge Crown Court heard today (27 November) that a HSE investigation into both incidents identified serious failings with the work not being properly planned, supervised or carried out in a safe manner.

via RNN media information for journalists and the press – Press Releases – UPDATED: FOOD COMPANY FINED FOR FAILING TO PROTECT WORKERS – RNN media information for journalists and the press.

Visit safetyphotoFor The Best Free Safety Photos On The Web

Gas outburst kills 5 in SW China mine – Globaltimes.cn

Share

Gas outburst kills 5 in SW China mine – Globaltimes.cn: Five people were killed and two injured in a coal mine gas outburst in southwest China’s Guizhou Province early Thursday, local authorities said.
The accident occurred at about 4 am under a transportation shaft of Nengtong Coal Mine in Pu’an county of Qianxinan prefecture when nine workers were doing maintenance work, the county government said in a press release.

Visit safety photos

Visit safetyphotoFor The Best Free Safety Photos On The Web

Terrifying moment oil drum explodes in garage workshop engulfing worker in flames | Mail Online

Share

Terrifying moment oil drum explodes in garage workshop engulfing worker in flames | Mail Online: The terrifying moment that an oil drum exploded leaving a workman seriously hurt was captured on dramatic CCTV footage.Remarkably, despite the ferocity of the blast, injured worker Findlay Gavin survived and has made a good recovery.CVS (Anglia) Ltd, based in Ipswich, Suffolk, has been fined �40,000 by South East Suffolk magistrates over serious health and safety breaches.�

Visit safety photos

Visit safetyphotoFor The Best Free Safety Photos On The Web

€12,000 award following shopping centre fall – The Irish Times –

Share

€12,000 award following shopping centre fall – The Irish Times – Thu, Nov 29, 2012: Former Miss Ireland Nuala Holloway, who injured her left ankle in a trip and fall at Superquinn shopping centre, Blackrock, Dublin five years ago, was awarded €12,000 damages yesterday in the Circuit Civil Court.Ms Holloway Casey, of Rowanbyrn, Blackrock, told Judge Barry Hickson she still suffered intermittent pain from the injury, which had been exacerbated by a second fall in the same store in February 2009.

Visit safety photos

Visit safetyphotoFor The Best Free Safety Photos On The Web

Woman says go-kart’s broken seat belt causes injury – chicagotribune.com

Share

Suit: Woman says go-kart’s broken seat belt causes injury – chicagotribune.com: A customer at a Bedford Park go-kart racing facility is suing the company and its management, claiming she was injured earlier this year while racing a go-kart with a broken seat belt.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday in Cook County Circuit Court, Kimberly Ball says employees at Chicago Race Factory assigned her a go-kart with a non-functioning seat belt on May 2. The staffers allegedly told her the safety harnesses were only used by children and not needed by adults, according to the lawsuit.

Visit safety photos

Visit safetyphotoFor The Best Free Safety Photos On The Web

RailCorp prosecuted over track worker’s death

Share

RailCorp prosecuted over track worker’s death: Railcorp is being prosecuted for the first time in its history by the state’s transport safety watchdog, following the death of a track worker struck by a train at Kogarah.

Tamati Grant, 59, died attempting to scramble clear of a southbound train from Hurstville just after 1am on April 13, 2010.

The fatality was attributed to the failure of a RailCorp employee, an area controller, at the train operator’s Sydenham signalling complex to alert Mr Grant’s cleaning team of the impending arrival of the train.

Visit safety photos

Visit safetyphotoFor The Best Free Safety Photos On The Web