Fines of the times

Summary
• Complacency is a common underlying cause of machinery accidents.
• Companies are vulnerable to prosecution under both criminal and civil law.
• Fines can exceed £1m.
• Problems should be eliminated at source by design and engineering methods.

When business is hard going, there can be a tendency for all “peripheral” projects to be shelved, with the shelving often continuing into busy periods when people don’t have time to address them. Unless regulators are actively chasing on specific areas, some companies perceive health, safety and environmental issues as peripheral. However, regulatory interest in these areas continues, regardless of the state of the economy.

This is driven by the high number of workplace accidents: newly-released figures reveal that in 2008/09, there were 32 fatalities on manufacturing sites with the total number of workplace deaths reaching 180.

The timber industry has plenty of potential for workplace fatalities and serious accidents, as illustrated by a quick look at some of the prosecutions conducted in August 2009.

In one, the operator of a telescopic forklift truck was crushed by the descending arm of his vehicle when leaning out of the window and inadvertently operating the vehicle arm. This led to fines of around £270,000 and could have been prevented if a simple system was in use to prevent anyone entering the telescopic arm’s operating area.

Common sense

In another incident, a machine operator lost three fingers when trying to fix a machine which was not isolated. This resulted in a of fine of £30,000. Such an accident could have been foreseen and avoided – all that would have been required was a quick risk assessment and common sense applied to how the machine is operated, set up, inspected and maintained with a view to minimising the risk of injury. Ironically, the company itself had already identified a range of faults with the machine, but had just not found the time to do anything about them.

Such complacency is a common underlying cause of machinery accidents. The photos show two woodworking machines which were being used on a daily basis. The company involved did not see any urgency in improving them, although the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) would certainly take a different view.

Home-made problem

The small twin cross-cut (bottom right) is a home-made machine designed to allow the operator to place a small component on the wooden jig which is then pushed between the two blades. This leads to two exposed circular saw blades, with the operator’s hand between them. In addition, his fingers will be close to the rubber belt which drives the spindle, there is no extraction or braking and the controls are difficult to see and reach.

The same company had a second, much larger machine, which could perform a similar set of operations. This had the benefit of keeping the operator away from the moving parts, but could have been greatly improved with a bit of thought and effort, such as bringing the top guards down to the height of the workpiece, adjusting the riving knives, fitting extraction, locating the controls so that they are easily reached and improving the housekeeping.

The action taken by the regulator when finding such practices will vary according to a range of factors, such as the likelihood of harm occurring and the attitude of the company regarding improvements. Prohibition notices will often be used to prevent the machine being used in the current state and prosecution may be undertaken. Actual fines vary greatly, but can exceed £1m.

The HSE has a searchable online database of prosecutions and a wide range of timber-related prosecutions can quickly be found. Most relate to prosecutions undertaken after a preventable machinery accident, with underlying causes typically being a failure to guard woodworking machinery properly, compounded by a lack of appropriate training and/or a failure to update tooling. Fines range from £3,000 to £20,000.

Compensation claims

In the event of an injury, it is worth remembering that, as well as potential prosecution by the regulator (criminal law), the company will be vulnerable to a compensation claim by the injured employee (civil law). The “no win, no fee” industry is big business and the total compensation bill for all employers for all causes of injury in the UK is estimated at more than £10bn. Claims are often spurred by employee dissatisfaction, for example, shortly after being laid-off – so a bumper period of compensation claims might be expected in the next year or two.

So what would a regulator expect to see in the case of woodworking machine use?

Written risk assessments give the opportunity to look at each machine in a systematic manner. If the person doing the assessment also pays attention to the general Approved Code of Practice on machinery and any sector specific guidance available, this will alert them to specific requirements such as braking or limited cutter projection tooling. Through the assessment, the aim should be to eliminate problems at source by design and engineering methods. Training will also be required and should be documented along with assessments of competence.

Headline fines

Big fines have also hit the headlines recently with regard to environmental transgressions. In July 2009, for example, a drinks importer was fined £272,000 for failing to fulfil its obligations under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2007. These require that all businesses with a turnover of more than £2m, which handle more than 50 tonnes of packaging a year, must register and fund packaging recovery. The fine reflected the amount which the company had saved by not registering.

When the regime first came out in 1997, many timber companies struggled to calculate the degree of their obligation under the packaging regulations. A number of prosecutions have since occurred with companies where the only person who understood the regime has since left and no-one has picked up the responsibility.