GOSHA

Update from the Guernsey Occupational Safety and Health Association

Find out more about who we are.

The Health and Safety Executive is urging employers using ride-on mowers to be more cautious after the successful prosecution of an employer following an accident involving use of a ride-on mower in a park.

An employee of Cheltenham Borough Council fell down from the ride-on mower in a park in 2008, suffering lung injuries in addition to two broken ribs, and had to stay home for more than two months.

Cheltenham Magistrates found the Council guilty of breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act and Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations. They fined the employer and ordered it to pay £3,000 as individual compensation to the injured, including £18,530.31 as costs.

The Council failed to conduct appropriate risk assessment for usage of mowers for cutting grass. According to the enquiry reports, the slope of the area that was being mowed was higher than what was permitted for the particular mower as per the guidelines issued by its manufacturers. In addition to this, the employer had failed to make any effort whatsoever to instruct the employee on proper usage of the mower despite cases of previous accidents.

HSE inspector Alison Fry, who was involved in the investigation, said that the accident could have been easily avoided with a little caution on part of the employer. The prosecution in fact acts as a reminder for employers to ensure that they conduct proper risk assessment and study the slope and surface that is to be mowed. They should also make sure that the employees are conversant with the proper usage of the mower.

According to HSE reports, there have been as many as 3 fatal injuries and 33 other serious injuries caused by mowers between 2001 and 2008.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has warned scaffolding companies to ensure their machinery and equipment are safe for the employees. The warning followed prosecution of Linmar Scaffolding Ltd for breach of regulation 8 (b) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005, after a scaffolding raised by the company collapsed at an industrial unit in Caerphilly.

The mishap occurred on the Western Industrial Estate in June 2006. The incident did not injure anyone as the scaffolding had not collapsed during a change in shift and so there were not many employees around.

The Cardiff-based company pleaded guilty to the charges before the Abergavenny Magistrates’ Court and was fined 1,800 pounds in addition to being imposed with costs of 5,400 pounds.

HSE construction Inspector Dean Baker has said the investigation revealed that the scaffolding was improperly attached to the building, which in turn increased the chances of it collapsing. He said the company should have ensured the structure was risk-free, as scaffolding services are exactly what the company specializes in.

Baker also noted that the said scaffolding has been in position for just over 10 days before it fell, which showed that there was also a risk of it collapsing while employees were working on it. He said the employees had been lucky that the scaffolding did not collapse while it was being used. The inspector also mentioned that CCTV footage showed that several employees had passed from the area just a few minutes before the collapse.

A recent report by an independent council set up by the Prime Minister on health and safety issues has said small businesses often receive a number of confusing messages on health and safety. In its report, the Risk and Regulatory Council (RRAC) has pointed out three main areas needing urgent attention:

• Small businesses receive varying messages from sources like legal and commercial partners, the media, consultants, insurers as well as the government.
• A number of ‘risk-mongers’ blow up the perceived risks for small businesses; as people like risk consultants hope to increase their business through such a move.
• Small organisations lack the confidence to understand and manage risks related to their business.

The council has made a number of recommendations in this regard. It suggests the HSE should work together with insurers through their supervisory bodies such as the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and the British Insurance Brokers Association (BIBA) to examine information being conveyed by insurers to their clients.

A similar proposal involves the bodies representing the legal fraternity. The Law Society and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) have been urged to take action short of regulatory mechanisms, to prevent personal injury lawyers working on the no-win no-fee principle from exploiting the legal provisos. If such measures do not work, the RRAC says the Ministry of Justice needs to step in and lay down regulatory guidelines.

Sarah Veale of the RRAC said smaller organisations get disoriented by the varying regulations and the bulk of information that comes their way from a number of sources. She added that this may cause them to either overestimate or neglect the risk that their employees and the general public face, and both these scenarios can be harmful for the businesses.

Andrea Austin, Legal Administrator at workers’ union, the GMB, has stressed that many workers employed in different industries across the UK who are using powerful vibrating tools, face constant risk of contracting HAVS.

HAVS (short for Hard Arm Vibration Syndrome) or Vibration White Finger is a condition which causes weakness in the hands and prevents the victim from working efficiently at home or at his job. The condition can cause lack of sensation at the fingertips and make the colour of the skin pale. It also leads to aches in hands, arms and fingers. HAVS is largely an occupational disease, which commonly occurs when a worker uses vibrating tools for a long time.

Austin pointed out that the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 protects workers by making it obligatory for the employers to conduct an exhaustive evaluation of the potential harm to the health and safety of the workers who are using hand-operated vibrating tools.

However, it appears that workers are still in a vulnerable situation, as General Kinematic Ltd refused to admit its liability when its employee Keith Rowley contracted HAVS because of constant use of a vibrating tool for fitting. Although, the company did not escape unscathed as it had to pay £10,000 as settlement when GMB, Rowley’s trade union, decided to pursue a claim for compensation through Thompsons Solicitors.

Martin Fell, who works with Thompsons Solicitors, said that HAVS might be an inescapable part of the job, but the employers are still liable because it is an occupational hazard with a serious impact on the life of the victim. He added that there is a need to protect workers from HAVS, and if the same is not done, then the employer has to pay compensation.