Legal Matters Risk Assessment

Two recent cases, which resulted in substantial fines for the employers, serve as a timely reminder to ensure that your workers and contractors are properly trained to carry out risk assessments and also that safe systems of work are implemented. Don Bryson, solictor  in Weightmans LLP’s Commercial Insurance Team reports.

The primary legislation with which we are concerned in issues of health and safety is the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. Section 2(1) states that “...it shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees”.

Allied to this, the Management of Health and Safety At Work Regulations 1999 require, at Regulation 3(1)(a), that “...every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work”.

In July, Lafarge Cement UK Plc was fined £200,000 after one of its quarry workers fell into the electric cooling fan of a motor that had been left uncovered during maintenance. This is what happens when we fail in some regard to take full account of the areas of legislation I have highlighted.

Stuart Richardson, a welder who had worked at Lafarge’s quarry in Dunbar, East Lothian, Scotland, for nine years, had been asked to assist with one of four motors on a stacker machine, used for crushing limestone for producing cement. Somehow, he became caught in the fan, which had been left uncovered, when it was switched back on.

It is still not known whether Mr Richardson slipped and fell into the fan, or whether he became entangled while trying to prevent a cable becoming snagged in its blades. He has no memory of the incident, having sustained severe injuries to his face and arm, requiring reconstructive surgery and losing his left ear.

Health and Safety investigations of the Lafarge site following the accident revealed there had not been a sufficient method statement put in place for the maintenance, and the workers concerned had not been trained in risk assessment. Lafarge later admitted full responsibility in failing to make a suitable assessment of the risks prior to work starting.

Here is some more legislation to consider. Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states that “...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” In other words, you also need to assess whether contractors on site are safe.

This is supported in the Management of Health and Safety At Work Regulations 1999 at Regulation 3(1)(b) . It also outlines a requirement for a suitable and sufficient assessment of “...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”.

Let’s take another recent case where two companies were each fined a total of £15,000 plus costs, after an engineer lost the tips of two of his fingers at a paper recycling plant in Greenwich. James Adams and another engineer, both employed by RCP Macpress (UK) Ltd, were sent to SCA Recycling UK Ltd’s premises to repair a “hogger”, a large waste paper shredding machine.

The hogger had sustained internal damage when the fork of a forklift truck had become detached and accidentally concealed in a load of waste paper.

In this case the engineers filled in their company’s risk assessment form before starting on the job. However, it would appear that they had only been instructed in how to fill in the form, rather than how to actually assess the risks involved.

Things did not go to plan, and an access panel leading to the damaged area was found to be jammed. The engineers took the view that a hydraulic jack, exerting enough force to shift 25tonnes, was appropriate to push the panel open, despite it only weighing an estimated 100kg.

Unfortunately, the panel opened very suddenly, but then immediately slammed shut again, trapping Mr Adams’ right ring and little fingers and resulting in the loss of the tips of both.

This case clearly demonstrates that it is not enough to simply instruct a worker to know how to tick the appropriate boxes on a risk assessment form.

Workers must be properly trained to carry out assessments effectively. After all, risk assessment and permitto-work systems are not worth the paper they are written on if the workersthemselves are unaware of how to recognise what hazards are involved in the operation proposed, and to plan the work accordingly.

Here, a permit-to-work had been issued by SCA Ltd to the two engineers. However, SCA Ltd had failed to ensure that their employees who were responsible for issuing the permits had been properly trained. It was found that they did not have a clear understanding of how that system should have been operated.

A properly implemented permit-to-work system should have ensured that a method statement was produced, detailing exactly how the work upon the shredder was to be undertaken.

This would include the issue of access to the damaged area.

Furthermore, the engineers also should have been made aware by their own employer that the permit only continued to be valid while the work proceeded according to the agreed method statement.

Once the jammed access panel meant that it did not, they should have been required to have returned to the permit issuer for further instructions.

Both companies would then have been afforded the opportunity to properly consider what new steps were required, in order that the work could proceed safely, and the method statement and permit-to-work could be revised accordingly.

Don: 0116 2616420