PROSECUTIONS

EXETER

Lift-shaft fall lands Flybe with £100k fi ne

What’s the story? Europe’s biggest regional airline Flybe has been given a £100,000 penalty after a worker fell into a lift shaft at Exeter Airport.

How did it happen? The 34-yearold employee was moving a loaded lift trolley on the second fl oor when he fell into the shaft and landed on the ground 5m below, fracturing his upper arm and pelvis in three places. He spent 26 days in hospital, was in a wheelchair for a month and then confi ned to crutches. He also had post-traumatic stress disorder and was unable to return to work for nearly a year.

What did the investigation reveal? UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspector Emma O’Hara found that the lift doors PHOTOGRAPHY: ALAMY

had a fault. Use of the door release key meant that the lift doors could be opened with the fl oor of the lift in any place, so the safety sensor was over-ridden. ‘Busy workers who were moving parts and tools felt compelled to keep the lift in use,’ she said. ‘The lift should have been taken out of service or an alternative system of work should have been in place.’

What happened in court? Flybe pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act at Exeter Magistrates’ Court. The company was fi ned £100,000 and ordered to pay £9963 in costs. Judge Jo Matson said the starting point for a fi ne was £300,000 but took into consideration the guilty plea, the fi rm’s exemplary health and safety record and its full cooperation.

FIRM FINED £400K AFTER WORKER’S ARM SEVERED COVENTRY

WHO HAS BEEN PROSECUTED? SaintGobain Construction Products UK, a division of the French glazing giant and based in Coventry, was taken to court by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after a worker lost his left arm.

WHAT HAPPENED? On 13 August 2017, an employee was clearing rock that had built up around the belt with a colleague. The rock had become so compacted it was diffi cult to remove by hand, so both men went to the end of the belt that contained the start/stop button, which was protected by a local isolation safety measure. They removed the local isolation and pressed the button, but it failed to clear the blockage.

One of the men went to the opposite end of the belt while the safety guards were still removed. The pair were no longer in visual contact, and one of the employees pressed the start/stop button again. His colleague’s arm was in close proximity to the rotating drum and his arm was drawn in.

WHY DID THE INCIDENT OCCUR? HSE investigators revealed there was no risk assessment or safe system of work in place for clearing rock safely from tail-end drums.

WHAT HAPPENED IN COURT? Saint-Gobain Construction Products – which designs, manufactures and distributes construction materials – admitted breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act. The fi rm was fi ned £400,000 and ordered to pay costs of £12,945.

WHAT DID THE INSPECTOR SAY? ‘This injury could easily have been prevented, had the risk been identifi ed,’ said HSE inspector Michelle Morrison. ‘Employers should make sure they properly assess and apply effective control measures to minimise the risk from dangerous parts of machinery.’

LONDON

Company director jailed for four years

What happened? Marian Lancu, a warehouseman, was killed instantly when he was crushed between two large glass panes and a forklift truck.

How did it happen? The 39-year-old Romanian national was working with a colleague to break up large glass panels weighing 200kg. The panels were intended for the Leadenhall Building (or ‘Cheesegrater’) in the City of London but rejected because of damage. As Lancu went to untie the panes of glass, they toppled onto him. He suffered seven fractured ribs, a fractured breastbone, bruising, ruptured heart lining as well as damage to a major heart vein, his liver and spleen.

Who was involved? The boss of TLW (UK), which employed Lancu, was Han Rao. The court was told he

‘had left his employees to get on with it and do the job as best they saw fi t without any thought for health and safety’.

What was the outcome? Rao was sentenced to four years after being found guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence at the Old Bailey on 30 January. He was banned from acting as a company director for six years. For breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act he was sentenced to 15 months to run concurrently. The sentencing of his company, TLW, under the same act was adjourned until 3 April.

What did the judge say? Judge Rebecca Poulet said: ‘The movement of panels that each weighed more than 200kg was a job that required careful risk assessment and supervision. You provided neither.’

IN COURTS AROUND THE GLOBE

LOGGER CRUSHED TO DEATH IN NZ

WHO? Export logging fi rm Guru NZ Ltd has been fi ned NZ$330,750 after a worker was crushed to death between a shipping container and the grapple of an excavator.

HOW? The victim was helping a colleague to close doors on a container fi lled with logs for export. The majority of the containers were closed manually; however, when containers became distorted, an excavator was used to assist workers on the ground to shut its doors.

WHY? WorkSafe’s investigation found no workers should have been within 7m of the excavator while it was in use.

SAFETY BREACHES IN AUSTRALIA

WHO? Australian fi rm Mainline Developments has admitted safety breaches during the construction of a residential complex at Narre Warren.

WHY? WorkSafe inspectors observed numerous and repeated safety breaches, including a lack of controls to prevent workers falling from the balconies, fi rst fl oors and roofs of the townhouses under construction, and workers using sections of scaffolding with missing planks.

Multiple trucks were seen reversing into oncoming traffi c to enter the site via a busy single-lane road and unloading without any traffi c management. The site had poor general housekeeping, including unhygienic toilet facilities without water or toilet paper and no area for meals or facilities for workers.

WHAT? The court heard Mainline repeatedly failed to implement most of the reasonably practicable control measures identifi ed in the 10 improvement notices issued by WorkSafe inspectors during the visits. It was ordered to pay A$50,000 for failing to ensure the means of entering and leaving a workplace was safe, $40,000 for failing to provide a safe working environment, $25,000 for failing to comply with improvement notices and $10,000 for failing to ensure persons other than employees were not exposed to risks.