Who is this course for?

This is a cost effective solution for companies allowing up to 40 employees to be trained in one day.  This course covers Duty of Care and ensures that all company car drivers have an awareness of the need to drive safely in line with their company’s policies. This course is effective for all types of vehicles and fleet sizes.

What is it about?

This course has been written specifically for company car and van drivers focussing on driver attitudes and safety awareness, delivered by experienced driver trainers including ex-police officers. We are not looking to teach people how to drive, instead we try to adapt behaviour and promote safe driving. This course is essential for companies who are looking to:

•  reduce accident/incidents rates – saving you money
•  demonstrate a duty of care towards employees
•  protect the image of your company in the community – Corporate Social Responsibility

Content

• Driver attitudes and beliefs
• Speed awareness
• Drug/alcohol impairment
• Driver fatigue
• Driving distractions
• Mobile phones and handheld devices
• Hazard awareness
• Fuel efficient driving

To ensure that the course is an effective solution for your company the course would be branded and delivered bespoke to your company using appropriate case studies making direct reference to your company’s policies and standards.

Additional content can be included as required.

This course is also accredited with the Proskills Academy.

There were 171 fatal injuries in the year to March, up from 147 in the previous 12 months, the figures from the Health and Safety Executive showed.

Experts are worried that cutting back on training and maintenance during the recession could be partly responsible for the rise, with the Institution of Occupational Health and Safety (IOSH) warning that ongoing “belt-tightening” could be causing the rise in deaths at work.

The construction and agricultural industries continued to report the highest levels of work-related injuries, with disproportionately high numbers of incidents, said the HSE.

However, the figures show a continued fall in the number of people injured at work. There were just over 90,000 injuries serious enough to keep people off work for four or more days – a rate of 363.1 injuries per 100,000 workers – down from the 96,427 the previous year.

There was a rate of 99 major injuries per 100,000 workers, such as amputations, fractures and burns, also down slightly from the previous year, the figures showed.

An estimated 1.2 million people said they were suffering from an illness caused or made worse by their work, down from 1.3 million in 2009/10.

The HSE said Britain continued to have the lowest rate of workplace deaths compared to the rest of Europe.

Judith Hackitt, HSE’s chair, said: “Britain can be proud that it has one of the best health and safety records in Europe but as the increase in the number of fatalities makes clear, we can never let up in our commitment to addressing the serious risks which continue to cause death and injury in workplaces.

The toll of injury and ill-health across all industries resulted in 26.4m working days being lost – an average of 15 days per case, 22.1m to ill-health and 4.4m to injury.

Richard Jones, heaad of policy at IOSH, said: “It’s disappointing that the drop in fatal injuries from last year hasn’t been maintained – even one death is too many.

“We’re concerned that this could be a delayed knock-on effect of recession and ‘belt-tightening’ – cutting back on training and maintenance – within organisations, which could now be finally beginning to bite.”

KEY FIGURES – 2010-11

1.2m working people were suffering from a work-related illness.

171 workers killed at work.

115,000 injuries reported.

200,000 reportable injuries (over three-day absence) occurred.

26.4m working days were lost due to work-related illness and workplace injury.

Source: HSE

Peter Hoy, a self-employed builder, suffered serious internal injuries in the incident, which happened in November last year while Mark Pratton was collecting building materials from a construction site in Rode, Somerset.

Pratton, who was working for Saint Gobain Building Distribution (trading as Jewson Builders Merchant), was collecting a pallet of materials that was behind a 2.5-metre high wall.

It was not possible to pick the materials up normally with the lorry crane, so to try to guide the crane into place Hoy climbed onto the roof of the cabin.

To get Hoy back down quickly, Patten tried to lift him with the brick clamp on the crane.

As Hoy walked between the arms of the clamp, which was at waist height, Pratten attempted to move the arms. But he used the wrong switch and accidently operated the clamp button.

The arms clinched Hoy’s waist, fracturing his pelvis and causing crush-related internal injuries, including nerve damage. His injuries are so severe that he is still off work.

On Friday (14 October), Yeovil Magistrates’ Court heard that Pratten’s actions went against all his training and more than 20 years of experience in operating lorry loaders.

He was familiar with the controls and fully aware of the machine’s capabilities, including the fact that the brick clamp was not suitable for lifting people.

“Even if the clamp had not been activated,” said HSE inspector Helena Tinton, “attempting to lift Mr Hoy down from the cabin roof with a brick clamp was in no way safe.”

Pratton, who lost his job over the incident, admitted breaching Section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work Act, which requires employees to take reasonable care of themselves and others.

Magistrates fined him £1500 and ordered him to pay £1000 in prosecution costs.

Source: HSE 14th October 2011

What are the benefits of these NVQ’s?
This qualification allows candidates to learn, develop and practise the skills required for employment and/or career progression in the health and safety sector. The qualification meets the academic requirements for Graduate Membership of IOSH.

Content
To achieve the full NVQ/SVQ Level 5 Diploma in Occupational Health and Safety Practice qualification, a candidate must demonstrate their competency, knowledge and understanding by completing the ten mandatory units

• Promote a positive health and safety culture
• Develop and implement the health and safety policy
• Develop and implement effective communication systems for health and safety information
• Develop and maintain individual and organisational competence in health and safety matters
• Identify, assess and control health and safety risks
• Develop and implement proactive monitoring systems for health and safety
• Develop and implement reactive monitoring systems for health and safety
• Develop and implement health and safety emergency response systems and procedures
• Develop and implement health and safety review systems
• Maintain knowledge of improvements to influence health and safety.

What are the benefits of these NVQ’s?
This qualification is suitable for any industry covering essential occupational health and safety knowledge and skills.

A Certificate in Occupational Health can help you develop your career as a health and safety practitioner in almost any industry.

Content
To achieve a full NVQ Level 3 you must complete the following units:

• Ensure responsibility for actions to reduce risks to Health and Safety
• Develop procedures to safely control work operations
• Monitor procedures to safely control work operations
• Promote a culture of health and safety in the workplace
• Conduct a health and safety risk assessment of the workplace
• Investigate and evaluate incidents and complaints in the workplace
• Make sure actions in the workplace aim to protect the environment
• Review health and safety procedures in the workplace
• Supervise the health, safety and welfare of a learner in the workplace.

This course is designed to ensure that all employees are aware of their own safety and the safety of customers, contractors and the public. This qualification can be tailored to business and individual needs to make the learning experience relevant and fit for purpose.

Who is this course for?
Anyone in a work environment.

Why is it about?
Employers are responsible for providing safe and healthy workplace conditions as well as the right systems and methods for safe activities. Nevertheless employees also have a vital part to play. They need the right knowledge and the right attitude which demands proper training in the basics of health and safety; as well as specific training for individual tasks.

Learning outcomes
• Basic understanding of the principles of health and safety and accident prevention
• Ability to contribute to any health and safety management system
• Understand the importance of risk assessment as a technique for accident and ill health prevention
• Understand the responsibilities placed on employers and employees
• Understand the hazard, risk and main causes of harm to workers (manual handling, hazardous substances, exposure to noise and vibration)
• Understand the importance of following systems, procedures and rules
• Understand how individual action can reduce risks to health and safety
• Appreciate how workplace equipment and task design affect health and safety.

This course is assessed by an end of course multiple choice examination.

This course can be run in-house throughout the UK with Public courses also available in Stoke-on-Trent.

Driver CPC is here to stay. Are you and your business ready?

I have heard all the stories – ‘It’s not going to be enforced’… ‘It does not affect me’…‘The Government will extend the date’ – well it is happening, it will be
enforced and there’s 1110 days to the deadline! (correct at 30.08.11)

In June this year the UK’s officials confirmed that mandatory Driver CPC remains a priority in government plans to improve road safety and NO changes will be made – September 2014 is fast approaching and set in stone!

Britain may well be facing a 30% shortfall of drivers come 2014 – only 1% of the 500,000 drivers expected to take up courses have done so.

Ensure that your drivers are trained, complete their Driver CPC and are under contract.

Who needs to get organised?  

Drivers

Drivers need to understand that it is a legal requirement and if they want to continue being employed driving for a living they have to complete their Driver CPC Periodic Training. It is their qualification and they cannot work without it.

Who should pay? I have trained many drivers and this is a very difficult question. Some companies are paying, and getting drivers under contract with a payback clause if they terminate their employment. Many owner drivers recognise that it’s their qualification and a ticket to work and they are paying for their own training – choosing courses they need! With legislation and penalties getting tougher and fines getting higher drivers and companies should choose courses that are relevant, add to their knowledge and experience and make a difference.

Companies

For far too long some drivers have been treated unfairly and undervalued (I stress – by some). One large company I did some work for called their company drivers ‘animals’, I was shocked. I prefer to call them ambassadors and recognise that they are the face of our industry, in effect our salesmen! I find it surprising that a minority of companies are not taking any interest in the training of their drivers, yet give them the keys to one of their most expensive assets. However, it’s great that CPC is being embraced by some companies who choose their courses and trainers wisely to ensure that the syllabus is being utilised to
‘Raise the Bar’. Companies should recognise vehicular and transport legislation is getting more complicated and drivers need training to ensure the law and regulations are complied with. There are some great courses and trainers available if you take the time to choose wisely.

A sample of Focale’s Driver CPC Courses

7 hour Courses

Driver Safety Awareness

Modular Driver CPC Courses (choose two)

Understanding Drivers’ Hours Legislation

Introduction to Tachographs

Drivers Vehicle Checks

Eco-driving – Save Fuel, Save Money

Customer Focus

Drivers’ Health and Wellbeing

Dynamic Risk Assessment

Safe Loading and Unloading Vehicles

ALL THE ABOVE COURSES HAVE BEEN WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY IN CONJUNCTION WITH CLIENTS

Industry

Everyone needs to understand that it is not going to go away. Drivers need to be encouraged to seek out the courses that they will enjoy and ensure that they
attend good training, rather than training for training’s sake. Drivers need to cover issues relevant to them and maximise their years of practical experience
with good quality training that enhances their skills.

Driver CPC is here to stay, so let’s embrace it and MAXIMISE it to improve driver safety and industry standards. The freight & transport
industry needs to make the role of a driver a career option and ensure this is demonstrated by embracing the training and utilising it as part of the
corporate training plans. It must become accepted as standard practice. Drivers will be in great demand.

Driver CPC requires that 35 hours of periodic training is undertaken every 5 year period.
The first deadline is fast approaching, 1110 days left and counting, yet VOSA report an uptake of only 1%. Yes, times are hard and business is tough but it will get tougher if we are not prepared and we have a shortage of trained drivers.

What should companies be doing?

It is essential to identify good training companies, seek references of their work and select appropriate courses that are relevant and worthwhile. Dare I suggest that a safety awareness training course is a must? Companies have a ‘duty of care’ to their drivers and it is essential that safety is taken serious and not just ‘Tick Box Training’.

‘Raise the Bar’ and consider courses that can save you money such as Eco-driving.

 A summary of fuel prices changes

39.2p per litre – 1990

77.4p per litre – 2000

141p per litre – 2011

Do you monitor your fuel costs per vehicle/driver? If not why not?

Let’s go for 5% saving by training your drivers – work out your savings!

Be prepared and make Driver CPC work for you!   

John Horton – Focale Training  

On 26 August 2009, Steven Graham was standing in between two skips at a recycling centre run by Lowmac Alloys Ltd when a shovel loader weighing more than 18 tonnes hit one of the skips, pushing it towards the other and crushing Mr Graham between them.

Mr Graham, 46, from Ayrshire, screamed for help but the driver of the shovel loader did not hear him at first and carried on driving. When he realised that Mr Graham was injured, the driver tried to lift one of the skips away from Mr Graham but it took two attempts before he managed to do so.

Mr Graham was taken to Ayr Hospital by ambulance. He was treated for a broken pelvis and other severe, life-changing injuries. He continues to have difficulty in walking.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that the company had not properly risk assessed traffic management at their site in Ayr and had not provided and maintained a safe system of work in that there were no barriers or road markings to separate pedestrian workers from the shovel loader or other vehicles on site. The investigation also found that the shovel loader was too big for the area where it was operating, and that the drivers had never been formally trained, were not supervised, and had been given no training at all on health and safety issues.

The one portable toilet on site was found to be unhygienic with no running water. Several of the employees told HSE inspectors that the toilet was so filthy they preferred to urinate in the yard, and this was a practice accepted by management. It was this situation that led to Mr Graham being in between the skips.

HSE Inspector Aileen Jardine said:

“Mr Graham suffered horrendous injuries that will affect him for the rest of his life – but this incident was entirely avoidable.

“If Lowmac had taken simple steps to protect their staff, carrying out a proper risk assessment and taking measures to separate employees from the heavy vehicles that operated on site, this would not have happened.

“And if the company had shown basic consideration for the welfare of their employees by providing a toilet that was fit to use, Mr Graham would not have been left in such a vulnerable position.”

At Ayr Sheriff Court today (15 August 2011) Lowmac Alloys Ltd, of Green Street Lane, Ayr, plead guilty to breaching Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974. They were fined £80,000.

Source: HSE – 15th August 2011

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), prosecuting, told Chelmsford Crown Court that in the early hours of 23 March 2010, Simon Mason, 22, from Romford, Essex was working the nightshift as a warehouse porter. An articulated 45ft HGV trailer was being reversed into an open loading bay while Mr Mason waited to unload it.

Mr Mason noticed the trailer was not positioned straight in the bay, so thinking it had stopped moving, he put his head around the back of the trailer to shout instructions to the driver. Just as he did so, the trailer came back further, crushing his head against the brick bay wall.

Mr Mason received severe head injuries requiring constant care for months and had to undergo several operations. He returned to work in February but is still suffering some long term effects.

HSE’s investigation found Tufnells had not assessed, controlled, or properly managed the risks arising from vehicle and equipment movements at its West Horndon depot. It had also failed to provide a safe system of work for its employees.

After the hearing today at Chelmsford Crown Court, HSE Inspector Glyn Davies said:
“Working with moving vehicles is a high risk activity which causes significant numbers of major and fatal injuries every year in this country. Tufnells is well aware of these risks and this horrific incident in which a young man could have lost his life would have been avoided had the company’s senior management ensured such risks were properly managed in all of its depots.

“This firm could have put in place a physical separation between the porters, moving vehicles and the loading bays and a safe way for porters and drivers to communicate with each other. None of these measures were evident and so a worker was seriously hurt for no good reason.”

Last year, 17 workers were killed and more than 530 suffered major injury after being hit by moving vehicles while at work in Great Britain. Of these, two workers were killed and 130 received major injuries resulting specifically from contact with a reversing vehicle.

Tufnells Parcels Express Ltd, whose Head Office is in Shepcote House, Shepcote Lane, Sheffield, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2 (1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £150,000 with costs of £19,000.

Source: HSE – 1st August 2011

(Pending Approval)

Who is this course for?
New and experienced drivers looking for a comprehensive first aid course which satisfies the requirements of the First Aid at Work Regulations.

The Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 require employers to provide suitable first-aid equipment, facilities and personnel to enable immediate assistance to be given to employees if they are injured or become ill at work. Regulation 3(2) states that in order to provide first aid to injured or ill employees, ‘..a person shall not be suitable unless he has undergone -
• such training and has such qualifications as the Health and Safety Executive may approve for the time being in respect of that case or class of case, and
• such additional training, if any, as may be appropriate in the circumstances of that case’

What is it about?
The course covers basic life saving first aid and workplace health and safety regulations and will provide delegates with a HSE Certificate in Emergency First Aid at Work. EFAW training enables a first-aider to give emergency first aid to someone who is injured or becomes ill while at work.

Content
• Health and safety (first aid) regulations
• Managing an incident
• The priorities of first aid
• Treatment of an unconscious casualty
• Resuscitation
• Shock
• Choking
• Seizures
• Bleeding
• Common workplace injuries

This is a one day module (7 hours Driver CPC training time) comprising of lectures, group discussions, practical exercises.

Who is this course for?
This is an in company course and is suitable for anyone who is involved in guiding reversing vehicles.

What is it about?
The course is designed to ensure that the reversing assistant is aware of their responsibilities in ensuring that vehicles are guided in the safest possible manner reducing the potential for harm to people and damage to the vehicle and property.

Content
• Roles and responsibilities of the driver and reversing assistant/banksman
• Key areas of danger involved with moving vehicles
• The ‘Crush’ zone
• Reversing procedure
• Positioning of reversing assistants
• Recommended code of signals

A training certificate attendance will be awarded upon completion of this course.

“Better Safe Than Sorry”

This course has been developed to assist managers of children’s day nurseries who wish to ensure that their staff understand the legal, financial and moral responsibilities that the owners have to ensuring the safety of everyone in their care.

The course is designed to demonstrate how the safety policies and practices of the nursery are essential in ensuring that the nursery functions safely, legally and stays in business. The content of this course has been designed specifically for this sector to ensure that it is engaging and effective.

With legislation such as Corporate Manslaughter now in force this type of awareness and training of staff should be considered essential.

Who is this course for?

All levels of staff working in a children’s nursery.

What is it about?

This course endeavours to provide an awareness of how to ensure the safety of children and staff in a children’s day nursery.

Content

• Introduction and Welcome
• Health and Safety – Why Bother?
• Accident Causation and Prevention
• Safety Law and You
• Responsibilities
• Health and Safety Management
 Training and Competence
 Risk Assessment
 Safe Systems of Work
 Reporting Accidents
• Slips, Trips and Falls
• Manual Handling
• Work Equipment
• Fire Safety
• Electrical Safety
• Hazardous Substances
• Food Safety
• First Aid

The course has also been designed to be interactive and your opinions, views and experience will be most valuable to the effectiveness of the day.

The training will be delivered by our lead health and safety trainer who is a Chartered member of IOSH and registered on the recently introduced Occupational Safety Consultants Register (OCSR).

Our health and safety consultancy offers advice from consultants regsitered with the OSHCR.

Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings became the first firm convicted under new corporate manslaughter legislation after the death of Alexander Wright.

Mr Wright, 27, from Cheltenham, died in Brimscombe Lane, near Stroud, in September 2008.

A jury at Winchester Crown Court found Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings guilty of failing to ensure his safety.

Geologist Mr Wright was taking soil samples for a housing development in the 12.6ft (3.8m) pit, which was not supported by timbers, when it caved in.

The company had denied corporate manslaughter. No-one was in the dock for the three-week trial.

The prosecution was the first under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.

‘Gravely mistaken’

Jonathan Grimes, partner at law firm Kingsley Napley, said that previously for a corporate manslaughter prosecution to succeed “it was necessary to secure a conviction against a senior individual within the company”.

“Under the new act this principle is replaced by a requirement for the organisation’s activities to have caused the death in a way that falls far below what could reasonably be expected of that company,” he said.

The judge, Mr Justice Field, said the company, which was described in court as being in a “parlous financial state”, could pay the fine over 10 years at £38,500 a year.

He said the fine marked the gravity of the crime and the deterrent effect it would have on companies to adhere to health and safety guidance.

He said a larger fine would cause the small scale company to be liquidated, and four people would lose their jobs.

“It may well be that the fine in the terms of its payment will put this company into liquidation. If that is the case it’s unfortunate but unavoidable but it’s a consequence of the serious breach,” he said.

The court was told that the company’s director Peter Eaton, 61, is seriously ill with cancer and has months to live.

He was unable to stand trial on a manslaughter charge but the jury was told to assess his conduct in reaching a verdict.

Mr Justice Field said that Mr Eaton was, in substance, the company.

He said Mr Eaton knew of a rule dating back to 1981 which said that pits more than 1.2m (4ft) deep should be supported due to the dangers of collapse and death.

The judge said Mr Eaton ignored the rule and instead decided his knowledge and that of his assistants should be used to see if it was safe to enter a pit.

“This approach to trial pitting was extremely irresponsible,” the judge said.

“Peter Eaton thought he knew better. In this he was gravely and culpably mistaken.”

‘Anger and bitterness’

The judge said a former employee had raised concerns about trial pitting with the Health and Safety Executive in 2005.

The executive contacted Mr Eaton, who said he would support the pits but did not.

Following the sentencing, Joe Wright, Mr Wright’s father, said the family still felt anger and bitterness, but had sympathy with the judge’s decision to give the company a chance to survive, and the employees to keep their jobs.

In a statement, the family said: “Nothing can return Alex to us, but we hope today’s sentence will make similar companies revisit their working practices so other families are spared a tragedy like this.”

Source: BBC news – 17th Feb 2011

Geologist Alexander Wright, 27, from Cheltenham, died at a development site in Brimscombe Lane, near Stroud, when a trench collapsed on him.

Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings denied killing Mr Wright in the accident which happened in September 2008.

A jury a Winchester Crown Court found the company guilty of failure to ensure the safety of Mr Wright.

Mr Wright, who had worked as a soil engineer for more than two years, was also an assistant Scout leader with the Charlton Kings Scout Troop.

The company will be sentenced on Thursday and could be fined a percentage of their turnover.

Earlier in the trial the court was told Mr Wright, an Imperial College graduate, was taking soil samples for a housing development in the pit, which was 12ft 6in (3.8m) deep and 2ft (60cm) wide, when it caved in.

The hearing was told the pit was not supported by timbering, which the Crown alleged was against health and safety laws.

Mark Ellison QC, prosecuting, said Mr Wright was working alone after his boss Peter Eaton, the company’s managing director, left the site.

The court was told the owners of the plot, Mark Chubb and Carly Fields, heard an “odd muffled noise” and then a cry for help.

Mr Chubb ran over and tried to remove some of the mud while he told Ms Fields to call 999.

A post-mortem examination later showed Mr Wright died from traumatic asphyxia.

‘Cavalier attitude’

Gloucestershire Constabulary said police had conducted a “lengthy and thorough” investigation working with colleagues from the Heath and Safety Executive.

“As a result of our investigation we found that the company had a cavalier attitude towards health and safety. The way it taught and supervised junior engineers was inherently dangerous and the methods of working were outdated.

“We are satisfied the trial has resulted in a guilty verdict as Alex’s family may now be able to move forward – knowing that someone has ultimately been found responsible for his untimely death.

“This case should also act as a salutary lesson to others working in site investigation and specifically within the geotechnical industry. We hope that today’s outcome may go some way towards protecting others working in similar fields.”

Speaking outside court Kevin Bridges from lawyers Pinsent Masons, who represented Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd, said: “The company will over the coming days consider all of its options including any potential grounds for appeal.”

Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd said the company held Mr Wright in the “highest regard” and “deeply regretted the tragic incident which resulted in the loss of this talented young man.”

The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 came into force in April 2008.

Source: BBC News 15th Feb 2011

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Ling Metals Ltd of Parham Road, Canterbury, Kent for breaching health and safety law.

Canterbury Crown Court heard on the 19 March 2007, Darren Baker, 35, of Thanington, was helping to lay a new horseriding surface of crumbled rubber at Brambles Stables, Watchester Lane, Minster, Ramsgate.

Mr Baker walked across the path of the boom just as the telehandler reached its balance point and tipped forward. The bucket hit him on the head and forced him to the ground. The operator managed to bring the vehicle upright by lowering the front stabilisers. Mr Baker died in hospital two days later from multiple injuries.

The telehandler was fitted with a ‘Safe Load Indicator’ device. These devices help operators to stay within safe limits by using a series of lights and an alarm. The Safe Load Indicator should be calibrated so that when the alarm goes off there is still sufficient capacity to prevent an overturn. The HSE investigation found that the Safe Load Indicator was not correctly calibrated and was unusable at the time.

In addition, the machine’s previous safety certificate (called a Certificate of Thorough Examination) had expired prior to the incident. Although an engineer had visited on two separate occasions to inspect and repair the telehandler they were unable to complete this due to the poor condition of the machine.

The operator had not been told how much the bucket weighed when it was empty or full, or how heavy a load of crumbled rubber was. Lastly, the operator lacked understanding of the machine instructions, which showed how much it could lift and to what maximum distance the boom could be extended.

HSE Inspector John Underwood said:

“I would like to remind owners and operators of machines fitted with older style Safe Load Indicators that these need checking and recalibrating on a regular basis as some older machines do not tell the operator when they have decalibrated.

“It is vital that the owner and operator have a robust procedure to ensure workers knows how to correctly use the machine; how to recognise when it may be going out of calibration and what to do about it. Each machine should be checked by plant fitters and maintained in line with the manufacturer’s recommendations.

“This was a wholly avoidable incident which led to unnecessary loss of life. I hope this fine will be an example to those involved in the use of telehandlers that machine maintenance is critical to enable safe operation.”

Ling Metals Ltd pleaded guilty at a previous hearing on 30 November at Canterbury Magistrates’ Court. Today, the company was sentenced at Canterbury Crown Court, to breaching section 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and regulations 7(c) and 10(3) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Appliances Regulations 1998. It was fined £200,000 and ordered to pay £11,384.11 in costs.

Source: HSE  – 28th January 2011

On the morning of 11 January 2008, three ceramic tilers, Michael Whateley, 28, his brother Robert Whateley, and Paul Keen, all from Northampton, were waiting in a car for a building plot to be unlocked in Broughton Road, Banbury, in Oxfordshire.

Near the car, Keith Payne, of Gillett Road, Banbury, was undertaking routine checks of a telescopic materials handler – a forklift truck with an extendable arm or boom commonly referred to as a telehandler.

Mr Payne climbed into the cab of the truck, raised and then fully extended the unloaded boom of the telehandler in what he considered to be part of his routine daily checks. However, the truck tipped over and the forks at the end of the boom landed on the car, crushing the roof of the vehicle.

Michael Whateley died from his injuries. Robert Whateley suffered fractures to his spine, and a brain injury. Paul Keen suffered neck and spinal injuries, a broken ankle, broken ribs and a fractured breastbone.

At the time of the incident, Linden Limited was the principal contractor on the site and Mr Payne worked as a self-employed construction plant operator.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation showed the incident was preventable if Mr Payne had followed the operating instructions in the machinery manual and ensured the telehandler was being operated on firm level ground.

Instead, while on unsuitable ground he extended the boom of the machine to its limits while the telehandler was not suitably positioned.

Also, Linden Limited failed to ensure the equipment was maintained properly and tyre pressures were found to be lower than recommended.

Following the hearing, HSE Inspector James Powell said:

“This was a horrific accident that was totally avoidable. Construction sites have inherent risks, and even rough-terrain lift trucks have strict operational limits that need to be observed. With competent operation and suitable maintenance, tragedies like this should not happen.

“Lives have been destroyed here and today’s sentencing must serve to remind all employers and employees of their duties and responsibilities while using this type of machinery.”

Keith Payne, of Banbury, Oxfordshire, was found guilty of breaching section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 on 12 October 2010. Today, he was fined £7,000.

Linden Limited, of Cowley Business Park, Cowley, Uxbridge, Hillingdon, pleaded guilty to regulation 5 of the Provision and Use of Work equipment Regulations 1998. The company was fined £7,500 and ordered to pay costs of £25,000.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has produced the web tool to help employers to consider relevant hazards in their office and think about how they control them to keep staff safe. Launched today, the tool will help avoid unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy for office-based businesses, which tend to be low risk.

Safety officials will take account of the results of the assessments when they carry out inspections – evidence that businesses have taken appropriate steps to manage workplace risk.

Judith Hackitt, the HSE chair, said:

“Many people assume that risk assessments need to be long, formal documents covering every hazard, no matter how minor or unlikely to occur. That’s not the case and the new 20-minute risk assessments make it clear that this can be done for any office quickly and easily.

“We’ve previously provided example risk assessments to help people identify the sort of risks they should be considering, but this goes one step further in helping employers actually do the assessment for offices.

“Employers know their businesses better than anyone – and with a little helping hand they can easily consider what is necessary to protect workers. Complying with the law in a low risk business can be done with common sense by anyone.”

The online tool works by prompting employers to answer a series of questions about their workplace and then generates a unique risk assessment with actions required.

HSE already provides example risk assessments for 34 workplaces, including charity shops, estate agents and hairdressers. They help businesses get to grips with the sort of risks they will need to manage.

The new 20-minute risk assessments differ because the online tool prompts employers to answer a series of straightforward questions that generates their risk assessment and action plan. Simplified risk assessments for other low risk workplaces are currently being developed.

The online risk assessment tool for offices can be found at www.hse.gov.uk/risk/office.htm

Source: HSE October 2010

Hargreaves (UK) Services Ltd of Esh Winning, Durham, a major energy support services company, pleaded guilty to a breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was also ordered to pay £35,000 in costs. The prosecution followed the death of Alan Noddle, who suffered fatal injuries when he was run over by a loading shovel on 20 July 2007.

Mr Noddle, 48, from Carcroft, Doncaster, worked as a maintenance fitter for Hargreaves’ sister company, Norec Ltd, and was working at the Hargreaves’ Astra Site at Immingham Docks on the day of the fatal incident.

He died when he was struck by a large loading shovel being used to transfer coal from one area of the plant to another. The driver of the vehicle could not see Mr Noddle as he walked across the stockyard because the large bucket on the loading shovel blocked his view.

After the hearing HSE Inspector Geoffrey Clark said:

“This is a tragic case where a man died as a result of dangerous practices at the site. The loading shovel severely obscured the driver’s view, yet despite this it was common practice for employees to be allowed to walk in the area where these machines were being operated.

“Workplace transport is one of HSE’s priorities, as transport injuries are a major cause of death and injury in the workplace. Although this is an extreme case, I would urge all employers to be aware of the dangers of moving vehicles of all sizes and to put appropriate measures in place to segregate people from moving vehicles to prevent another tragedy from happening.”

Source: HSE 29th October 2010

We specialise in facilitating business start ups and in ongoing partnerships with small to medium sized industrial and service sector organisations where our hands on approach is most effective.

Our Business Consultancy includes:

On demand and hands-on consultation from our panel of experienced and successful business partners to support every aspect of your business from strategic planning to achieving growth by acquisition or development of existing markets products or technology; from downsizing and cost reduction to adopting the best practice in continuous improvement ,total quality ,customer care, team-building and conflict resolution.

A range of tailored training to meet whatever are your current business needs reinforces our preferred approach which is essentially that we are your partners until you achieve your goals.

Business Training Solutions

We also offer off the shelf modules for each of general managers, middle managers and sales and general staff for those who prefer to design and manage their own development.

Our menu offers:
• Customer case studies
• Press releases
• Website content
• Newsletters
• In-house PR training for your staff
• Proof reading/copy tidying
• Annual Report writing
• Poster/flyer design and print
• Phone/email support

This bespoke PR consultancy service is now available nationwide.

Choose from a one-off fee or a monthly rate to build your own package.

The prosecution follows an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an incident on 2 March 2007 in East Peckham, Kent.

Damian Griffiths, 20, an agency worker for Veolia, was litter-picking on a grass verge of the A228 with a colleague, who was driving a caged vehicle, used to collect the litter, alongside him.

A large goods lorry travelling in the same direction collided with the caged vehicle, shunting it into Mr Griffiths. The LGV driver escaped serious injury but Mr Griffiths died at the scene.

Veolia ES (UK) Ltd, of Pentonville Road, London, was found guilty of breaching sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, at Maidstone Crown Court, on the 11 August 2010. It was also ordered to pay costs of £95,239.

Following sentencing, HSE Inspector Caroline Penwill, said:

“Veolia failed to ensure Mr Griffiths’ work activity was safe and properly planned. As a result of its failure a man has died. This has had devastating consequences for Damian Griffiths’ family.

“Litter-picking near busy roads can be a high-risk activity if not properly planned. Veolia was responsible for managing these works, but in this case did not properly protect the roadside crew from oncoming traffic.

“Other road users were also put at risk. This is unacceptable. Those responsible for managing roadside jobs must ensure that safe systems of work are in place, and measures are taken to safeguard workers and members of the public.”

Source: HSE 5th Oct 2010

Charles Wilkinson, 51, from Berwick, was struck by the telehandler as it was being reversed the wrong way along a one-way residential street in Tweedmouth.

Newcastle Crown Court heard the company, James Swinton Co Ltd, was carrying out refurbishment work in the street on 10 November 2008.

The company had not requested a road closure from Berwick District Council and there were still residents’ cars parked in the street.

The telehandler driver was reversing his vehicle up the street the wrong way when it mounted the pavement and struck Mr Wilkinson, who was taken to hospital with injuries to his pelvis, spine and ribs but later released.

However, Mr Wilkinson died four weeks later as a result of a blood clot. A Home Office pathologist later determined the clot was caused by the incident.

The company, James Swinton Co Ltd, of Noble Place, Hawick, Scotland, had pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to one breach of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was today (4 October) fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £4,063 costs.

After the case, HSE Inspector Dr Dave Shallow, said:

“This was a tragic accident that could and should have been avoided.

“Site transport activities should be managed to minimise as far as possible the need for reversing. But where it is necessary to reverse, site managers should ensure that it is done in a safe and controlled manner, using a banksman, reversing aids on the vehicles and segregation of pedestrians and vehicles.

“The company could have asked Berwick District Council for a road closure which, along with these measures and the removal of residents’ vehicles, would have allowed safer movement of construction plant and vehicles.”

Source: HSE 4th Oct 2010

Karl Davis, who was married and lived in Wallasey, was working on the first floor of a building on the Finch Lane site in Halewood when a guardrail gave way and he fell out of an open window frame.

Kier North West, part of the Kier group which has an annual turnover of more than £2.4bn, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after the incident on 27 February 2007.

Mr Davis remained in a coma for three months before he died on 29 May, less than a week after his 43rd birthday.

Liverpool Crown Court heard that a rubbish chute had been attached to a temporary guardrail at the window frame, leading to a skip below. Kier North West’s site management team had failed to ensure that the guardrail could withstand the weight of the chute and materials being thrown down it.

HSE inspector Robert Hodkinson said:

“What is incredibly sad about this incident is that a man lost his life when equipment installed to make the work safer failed. Kier North West should have planned and managed the use of the rubbish chute on the site to make sure it was safe.

“Falls from height are the biggest single cause of death and serious injury at work and employers must make sure not only that they provide suitable safety equipment, but that it is also installed, used and maintained properly.

“If Kier North West had ensured the rubbish chute was attached to a structure which could support its weight then Mr Davis would still be alive today.”

The company pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for failing to ensure the safety of workers. Kier North West, which is based in Tempsford Hall in Sandy, Bedfordshire, was ordered to pay £43,993 costs in addition to the fine.

In 2008/9, there were 35 deaths and more than 4,000 major injuries caused by falls from height.

Information on how to prevent falls from height is available at www.hse.gov.uk/falls.

Source: HSE 23rd Sept 2010

Lambert Engineering Ltd of Station Estate in Tadcaster pleaded guilty at Selby Magistrates court to a breach of health and safety legislation after an HSE Inspector found widespread instances of protective guards on factory floor machines either being removed or disabled. In some cases, safety devices had been altered by employees to allow machines to operate unsafely.

The company employs around 115 people, designing and manufacturing machinery for the pharmaceutical and food industries. The issues came to light after a preventative visit by HSE Inspector Geoff Fletcher in May last year.

The court heard there was an endemic weakness in safety management systems at Lambert Engineering. The key failings were poor risk assessment of processes, a lack of control and supervision of workers and a culture whereby the company failed to carry out checks to make sure safe practices were fully in place.

The company admitted the charge of a breach of Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety At Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £6,000 and ordered to pay £4,198 in costs.

After the case, Inspector Geoff Fletcher said:

“The company failed to ensure that their machines and specifically the safeguarding mechanism were maintained effectively, allowing dangerous practices to develop and remain unchecked over some ten years.

“It is more by luck and certainly not by good management that an injury did not occur at the plant. This is a company offering bespoke machines which themselves offer top quality safety devices. I trust they will endeavour in future to focus equally on ensuring their own safety guards are used as the manufacturers intended and in line with legal requirements.”

Source: HSE 14th Sept 2010

RM Supplies (Inverkeithing) Ltd had pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to breaching Regulation 4(1) and 5 of the Docks Regulations 1988. The company was fined a total of £14,000.

The operation involved the berthing of a vessel at Berth No.1 of a quay that was in a severely dilapidated condition. This was done at night, even though the quay lacked any lighting. In the course of this operation, Charles Greenhill, 47, fell into the water between the quay and the berthing vessel. Due to a lack of adequate means of escape or rescue, Mr Greenhill had to be rescued by the vessel’s lifeboat.

At Dunfermline Sheriff Court today (8 September 2010), Mr Thomas Muir, who was Director of RM Supplies (Inverkeithing) Ltd, pleaded guilty to the charge of failure to carry out suitable and sufficient risk assessment – a breach of Regulation 3(1) of the Management Regulations 1999.

Mr Muir, 56, of Boglilly Road, Kirkcaldy, ran a scrap metal operation from The Bay in Inverkeithing. He was prosecuted under health and safety legislation following the incident on 16 May 2007.

HSE Inspector Michael Orr said:

“This was a significant breach of health and safety law which could have resulted in death had it not been for the intervention of the ship’s crew. The conditions on site were unacceptable. There was no suitable or sufficient risk assessment, or attempt at planning which could have identified the state of the quay as unacceptable for use for any dock operations. This case should serve as a warning to all employers to ensure that routine and infrequent activities are effectively planned.”

Source: HSE - 8th September

JBB Homes Ltd of St. Petersgate, Stockport in Cheshire – which has subsequently gone into liquidation – pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. It was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £10,835.

The site in Llanfairfechan where the incident took place.

The company’s director, James Burt, based at the same address in Stockport, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 37(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and was fined £10,000.

Llandudno Magistrates’ Court heard that builder Nicholas Roberts, 28 years old from Rhyl, was working on scaffolding at a site in Gwylanedd, The Promenade, Llanfairfechan on 4 December 2007 when the incident happened.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that Mr Roberts was carrying out work to replace a lintel, when he fell from the scaffolding. He fractured his pelvis in three places, broke some teeth and bruised his pelvis and groin.

Following the hearing HSE Inspector, Debbie John, said:

“Falling from a height of around nine metres, Mr Roberts was extremely lucky to survive. It’s incredible that he managed to walk away with broken bones.

“JBB Homes Limited and James Burt failed in their duty to provide a safe system of work, including a lack of suitable means to prevent falls from the scaffolding. Mr Burt also failed to properly supervise his staff.

“Falls from height remain the single biggest cause of workplace deaths and one of the main causes of major injury and construction companies must not leave safety of their workers as an after-thought, which could lead to tragic consequences.”

More than 4,000 workers suffered a major injury as a result of a fall from height in 2008/09. HSE’s Shattered Lives campaign aims to highlight the dangers of slips, trips and falls in the workplace.

Source: HSE 1st September 2010

Work to develop the scheme, called for by IOSH for a number of years, has been accelerated as a result of Lord Young’s government review into health and safety. Lord Young has been critical of people operating as unqualified consultants, and blames them for some of the worst examples of over-the-top actions carried out in the name of health and safety.

The scheme, which will be voluntary, is likely to be introduced early next year, but announced soon. It will be set up and initially chaired by the Health and Safety Executive, and has been developed by a group of professional bodies led by IOSH and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. A consortium of professional bodies will eventually run the register.

IOSH members working as consultants will have to be Chartered to join the scheme, so that clients can be confident that they will get advice from someone with a degree level qualification in safety, practical experience, and a formal commitment to Continuing Professional Development.

IOSH Chief Executive Rob Strange said:

“IOSH has been lobbying for safety consultants to be licensed or accredited since 2003. We’re pleased that our work in this area is now paying off. We agree with Lord Young’s view that ‘cowboy consultants’ have given health and safety a bad name with ridiculously OTT advice. And, worse, we believe that unqualified advice can lead to lives being put at risk.

“It’s vital that businesses looking for help – often small firms – get sound, proportionate advice on health and safety, and that they have confidence in those advising them.

“Research shows that there is support from both bona fide consultants and small businesses for this sort of scheme.

“We see the scheme as setting the standard for competent, qualified and experienced health and safety consultants, and helping to restore confidence in health and safety.”

Source: IOSH 17th August 2010

A.C.P (Concrete) Ltd, which produces concrete panels, was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) following the incident in their factory in the Derwent Howe Industrial Estate, which left worker Jamie Graham, 25, from Cockermouth in a hip to toe full leg cast for six weeks and on crutches for another four months.

Workington Magistrates’ court heard that steel cables were threaded through concrete moulds and stretched to 2000 lbs tension. On 19 March 2009, a grip holding one of the tensioned cables failed, releasing a 200-feet long cable.

When Mr Graham went to re-thread that cable, another grip failed, releasing a second 200-feet-long steel cable, the end of which passed straight through his lower right leg, leaving him impaled on the 9mm steel cable.

The fire and rescue service had to cut the cable to release him and he was taken to hospital with the end of the cable still imbedded though his shin.

An HSE investigation found the company did not have any system in place for inspecting and maintaining the grips, and that an average of eight grips failed each week at the premises.

HSE also concluded that A.C.P did not have a safe system of work in place for re-threading the steel cables and fixing new grips when they failed on tensioned cables. This meant that workers could be crouching directly in line with the ends of tensioned cables whilst making repairs.

HSE Inspector Mike Griffiths, said: “This terrifying incident should have been prevented. The lack of any inspection or maintenance of the grips meant that problems with them were only detected when a grip failed and that could sometimes result in a cable being released at high speed.

“The fact that the grips had to fail before they were replaced meant that there were significantly more failures under tension and the chances of a serious injury were increased.

“The company should have ensured that the task of re-threading the cables was properly assessed and that the significant risks to their employees were properly controlled.”

The court heard that Mr Graham, who is a keen weight trainer, was significantly immobilised for six weeks after the incident and still suffers pain and weakness in his right leg.

The company pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was also ordered to pay £6,638 costs.

Source: HSE 20th August 2010

The load – which was part of a building under construction on 3 November 2007 at Hertfordshire Regional College in Turnford, near Cheshunt – came down heavily beside part of the campus regularly used by students. The impact also demolished the site boundary fence and damaged a college building.

London Tower Crane Hire & Sales Limited, the company which owned and operated the crane, appeared at Hertford Magistrates’ Court today and admitted breaching health and safety laws in a prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

The company, which has a head office at Elstree Way, Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, was fined £18,000 and ordered to pay £15,837.45 in costs.

HSE Inspector Norman Macritchie said:

“It was a matter of good fortune that no-one was injured in this entirely avoidable incident.

“Those undertaking lifting operations have absolute duties to plan, supervise and carry them out safely. Maintenance staff had indentified safety-critical faults in the crane yet simple controls needed to prevent use of defective equipment were not implemented. Poor communication and teamwork, together with inadequate supervision, all contributed to this incident.

“This case has important lessons for all those operating lifting equipment and especially tower cranes.”

London Tower Crane Hire & Sales Limited admitted breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Regulation 5(2) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007.

Source: HSE 16th August 2010

Arthur Jamieson, 58, from Keith, Banffshire, was working beneath the digger on 21 November 2008 at Parkmore Quarry, Dufftown, Aberlour, when the vehicle rolled backwards, crushing him.

His employer, Leiths Scotland Limited, a company specialising in quarrying operations, general construction activities and civil engineering, was prosecuted under health and safety legislation over the incident.

Elgin Sheriff Court heard mobile plant fitter, Mr Jamieson, was fixing a transmission leak on the five-and-a-half tonne digger.

The vehicle was raised on a ramp, but its rear wheels were inadequately secured. Mr Jamieson was crushed when the vehicle rolled off the ramp, and was suffocated as a result of a wheel compressing his chest.

HSE’s investigation concluded that Leiths Scotland Limited failed to provide adequate information, instruction, training and supervision to Mr Jamieson to prevent any risk to his health while working for them.

Mr Jamieson had not previously carried out the task and was expected to establish his own method of raising and supporting the vehicle above the ground. He was left to organise suitable blocks to support the digger without direct supervision or suitable instructions.

The company, based in Rigifa, Cove, Aberdeen, pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 at Elgin Sheriff Court on Monday (9 August 2010), where it was ordered to pay £96,000.

After sentencing, HSE Inspector Norman Buchanan said:

“This tragic incident should have been avoided. Although Arthur Jamieson was undoubtedly an experienced mobile plant fitter, he had not previously carried out this particular task for this firm. He should have received adequate information, training and supervision from his employers, which Leiths did not provide.

“It is wholly unacceptable his employers left him unsupervised to devise his own means of working on such a risky repair job.

“Had Mr Jamieson been adequately supervised, he would not have been able to start working underneath the digger when it was inadequately secured at the rear and therefore able to move from its position on the ramps. As a result his death could have been prevented.”

Source: HSE - August 29th 2010

The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require all employers to have access to competent help in applying the provisions of health and safety law. In larger organisations this is usually achieved through employing qualified safety practitioners. Where this is not a viable option employers should enlist the assistance of external services.

How can Focale Safety Consultancy Services help?

In addition to Focale’s comprehensive range of training courses we offer a health and safety consultancy service which can be tailored to your needs.

Our Senior Health and Safety Consultant is a Chartered Member of the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) with over 30 years experience in Health and Safety Management. All consultants used are registered with the new Occupational Safety and Health Consultants Register (OCHCR).

We offer a small business consultancy retainer package which can be adapted to your specific requirements.

Small Business Safety Consultancy Retainer Package

• Telephone link to Focale for advice on health and safety issues
• Review of your existing Health and Safety Policy and Health and Safety Management System
• Quarterly Health and Safety Bulletin
• Visit to your Head Office to discuss your compliance with health and safety legislation and to offer advice on making your workplace a safer and therefore more profitable business including:
• Risk Assessment
• Safe Systems of Work
• Permits to Work
• Control of Contractors
• Accident Reporting and Investigation
• Training and Competence review

In addition to the above you will also receive discounted rates for Health and Safety training during the year.

This service is available nationwide on a 12 month consultancy contract basis for a very competitive fixed monthly fee.

Your business or organisation can gain free publicity by using the press effectively and this course gives you the tools to write press releases effectively.

Written and delivered by an experienced trainer with over 20 years experience in the media this course provides the insight required to ensure that your press releases get noticed and get used more often.

If you have a forthcoming event or news story that you wish to promote the trainer will also provide specific assistance to ensure that you gain maximum benefit from the training as quickly as possible.

Who is this course for?
This course is suitable for businesses or organisations large or small who want to raise their profile by using the media as a means of free publicity. No previous experience in this area is required to attend – simply an interest in the subject matter.

What is it about?
The course is designed to inform delegates how to write a press release effectively to ensure that the media consider your press release newsworthy and to maximise the publicity through effective writing.
At the end of the course delegates will be able to write an effective press release for their business/organisation.

Content
• What is PR?
• Who do we want to reach and how do we reach them?
• What PR can do for you
• Understand how the media uses press releases
• How to identify a newsworthy story
• The golden rules of writing a press release
• What makes a good press release?
• Using pictures effectively
• How to handle a PR crisis
• Produce press releases that get used

This is a half-day interactive course using group exercises, discussions, exercises and a presentation that allows delegates gain an appreciation of where PR should fit into any organisation, large or small with an understanding of the audiences and techniques required.

At the end of the course delegates will be able to write an effective press release.

This course is available as an ‘in-company’ course with bespoke or as a Public Course – please call or email for details of courses taking place in your area.

Balfour Beatty Ground Engineering Ltd and Multibuild Ltd pleaded guilty to breaching health and safety laws at Hull Crown Court.

The court heard that a piling machine, used to drive building supports into the ground, fell over and rolled across the road before crushing a wall opposite during the evening rush hour on 10 December 2007. Tower Street was closed for several hours until it was made safe.

An HSE investigation found that the main contractor, Multibuild Ltd, was responsible for providing a stone platform for the machine to work from, but had failed to design or install it correctly.

Balfour Beatty Ground Engineering Ltd as a specialist sub-contractor had the responsibility for safely carrying out the work.

After the hearing HSE Inspector Dave Redman commented:

“This incident could easily have resulted in disaster, and it is nothing short of a miracle that no one was killed or seriously injured given it occurred during the peak of the evening rush hour.

“It is every company’s responsibility to ensure that employees and members of the public are not exposed to danger from heavy construction machinery.

“There is extensive guidance governing safe working in this sector, and we hope today’s prosecution serves to remind people of their duties so that we don’t witness an incident of this kind again.”

Balfour Beatty Ground Engineering Ltd, previously known as Stent Foundations Ltd, of Ashwood Way, Basingstoke, Hampshire, and Multibuild Ltd, of Pepper Road, Hazel Grove, Stockport, breached section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 in connection to the incident.

Balfour Beatty was fined £25,000 and ordered to pay £17,676 in costs. Multibuild Ltd was fined £20,000 and ordered to pay £18,687 costs.

Source: HSE Date: 5 August 2010

Continual training is essential for the reduction of accidents and the occurrence of ill health and damage in the workplace. Toolbox talks play a major part in the continuing effort to create and maintain an increased awareness of hazards present in the workplace and the precautions which must be taken to eliminate or control them.

The skills required to present toolbox talks effectively, is often overlooked by employers meaning that the presenter is often ill prepared or lacking confidence when facing the audience. The result is often ineffective training, costing money and potentially lives.

The course is designed to assist delegates with the skills to develop and deliver a positive and effective toolbox talk to employees and contractors.

During the course delegates will undertake a toolbox talk presentation.

Who is this course for?
The course is designed for line managers, supervisors/foremen who have a responsibility to communicate the health and safety message effectively.

What is it about?
The aim of the course is to equip delegates with the necessary knowledge and skills to design and deliver a structured toolbox talk.

Content
• Introduction to Toolbox Talks
• Planning and Preparing the Toolbox Talk
• Knowing your Audience
• Formulating the Message
• Exercise 1: ‘Preparing and delivering a startling fact’
• Presentation Skills
• Preparation
• Practice – Techniques and Performing
• Delivery Techniques
• Giving and Receiving of Feedback
• Resources
• Exercise 2: ‘The Presentation’
• Evaluation

This is a structured course that covers what we believe to be the most important issues and it is essential that it does. However, our approach in delivering the course is flexible and pragmatic. Our trainer is an experienced health and safety consultant who is able to provide sound advice and guidance on your own specific circumstances. The course is intended to be interactive and our trainer will encourage your participation. He will welcome any contribution that you can make, based upon your own experience. There will, therefore, be plenty of opportunity to focus on the things that matter to you.

During the course, delegates will undertake written assessments and practical exercises to determine the knowledge, understanding and skills they have obtained from it. The Focale Certificate of Achievement will be awarded to course delegates attaining the required standard.

Learning objectives
On completion of the course, delegates should be able to:
• Understand the role and responsibility of presenting a toolbox talk which is effective and sufficient.
• Be able to organise and structure a toolbox talk
• Use body language and communication technique to present to an audience
• Practically deliver a toolbox talk by being confident, positive and controlling the audience
• Be able to give and receive feedback in a constructive manner
• Be able to evaluate the effectiveness of a toolbox talk
• Demonstrate enhanced training and communication skills

Other relevant courses available
• Accident Investigation and Reporting
• An Introduction to Behavioural Safety
• Directors’ and Senior Management Responsibilities for Managing Safety
• Fire Safety Awareness
• First Aid at Work
• Risk Assessment, Safe Systems of Work and Permits to Work
• Safe Use of Work Equipment (PUWER 1998)
• Supervising Health and Safety
• IOSH Managing Safely
• IOSH Working Safely.

Stoke-on-Trent, Staffs-based Dime Metal Services had its licence revoked from 7 August, and boss Simon Dimelow has lost his repute and is disqualified from applying for a new licence for 15 months.

In a written decision, following a public inquiry held on 14 July, West Midlands Deputy Traffic Commissioner Roger Seymour said the company had shown an “almost total disregard of the law and obligations of operator licensing”.

VOSA inspectors carried out maintenance investigations into the company in November 2009 and April 2010.

Following these, eight prohibitions – three of which were S-marked – were imposed on the firm.

These related to “very serious” brake and tyre defects as well as three instances of loose wheel nuts.

The DTC also looked at convictions Dimelow had received at a magistrates’ court in April 2009 of using 10 vehicles, despite the fact the firm’s authorisation had been reduced to eight following a public inquiry in 2004.

In February 2010, Dimelow was also convicted of one offence of failing to produce analogue and/or digital tacho records in respect of a written request, 20 offences of failing to use a tacho record sheet or driver card, and four offences of being the user of a goods vehicle that had exceeded 4.5 hours driving without a break.

Seymour said he believed Dime’s new transport manager, Barry Dunn, had attempted to improve procedures at the firm.

However, the DTC added: “Looking at the evidence overall, I find that this operator has failed to discharge his responsibilities and undertakings to maintain his vehicles in a roadworthy condition to the point where the continued use of his vehicles constituted a significant danger to other road users.”

Source: Road Transport – July 30th 2010

Humberside Aggregates and Excavations Ltd, of Newport Road, North Cave, East Yorkshire, was also ordered to pay £10,590 in costs after pleading guilty to three separate breaches of Quarries Regulations 1999 in the prosecution brought by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).

The wheel loader after the incident

Beverly Magistrates Court heard that an employee, who does not wish to be identified, was being trained as a wheel loader operator at North Cave Quarry, Humberside Aggregates and Excavations Ltd’s sand and gravel extraction and processing facility.

On 30 October 2009, he was transporting sand from a stockpile when the access ramp edge he was driving on gave way, which caused the machine to overturn and plunge almost 16ft because there were no edge protection barriers in place. The trainee lost consciousness, suffered concussion and was hospitalised for two days.

The Health and Safety Executive prosecuted Humberside Aggregates and Excavations for failing to assess, identify and minimise potential risk, and for ultimately failing to protect the worker.

Following the hearing HSE inspector Richard Noble said:

“This accident could have been avoided had sufficient edge protection been put in place at minimal cost, which has been the standard within the quarrying industry for many years.

“Quarrying remains one of the most dangerous industries to work in. Since 2000 more than 3,000 workers have suffered an injury reportable to HSE and 24 people have been killed. Workplace transport is the industries biggest cause of fatal accidents within the industry, and that is why the industry and HSE work together in a joint advisory committee to introduce good practices for quarry operators.

“We are working very hard to reduce these accidents and fatalities. HSE produce much guidance on how to avoid them, so the reasons why this accident occurred are inexcusable.”

Source: HSE 28th July 2010

The £1.3 million in fines for the pollution caused are a record in the UK.

Concluding a four-month trial at St Albans Crown Court, Mr Justice Calvert-Smith said the companies had shown “a slackness, inefficiency and a more or less complacent attitude to safety.”

The prosecution of Total UK Ltd, British Pipeline Agency Ltd (BPA), Hertfordshire Oil Storage Ltd (HOSL), TAV Engineering Ltd (TAV) and Motherwell Control Systems 2003 Ltd, followed the most complex investigation ever conducted by the Health and Safety Executive and Environment Agency.

The painstaking investigation uncovered a series of serious failings that led to thousands of gallons of petrol being released in a large vapour cloud.

The resulting explosion registered at 2.4 on the Richter scale, injured 43 people, and destroyed nearby businesses. The environmental impacts of the disaster are still evident today.

The cost of dealing with the disaster has been estimated at more than £1billion, making it the most costly industrial incident in the UK.

Kevin Myers, HSE’s Deputy Chief Executive, said:

“Incidents like the explosion at Buncefield are exceptionally rare. However, society rightly demands the highest of standards from the high hazard industries. Businesses in this sector must manage the risks they create effectively because when things go wrong, the consequences are severe and can destroy lives and shatter local communities.

“Major hazard industries must learn the lessons of events like this. From the Board room down companies must ask themselves these questions: do we understand what could go wrong; do we know what our systems are to prevent this happening; and are we getting the right information to assure us they are working effectively.”

Howard Davidson, Thames Director at the Environment Agency, said:

“As a result of a successful investigation and prosecution, five companies have today been held to account for their failures.

“The Buncefield blast shattered the local community and left a long-term legacy of pollution. It has already involved a five-year clean up operation by the oil companies involved and the Environment Agency will be a presence around the site for many years to come.

“There should be no doubt that we will always seek to prosecute those who cause serious pollution and damage the environment for future generations”

The following sentences were handed down:

Oil giant Total UK Limited pleaded guilty to three offences and was fined £3.6 million (£3million for safety; £600,000 for pollution) and ordered to pay costs of £2.6 million
Supply company British Pipeline Agency Ltd pleaded guilty to two offences and was fined £300,000 for environmental offences and ordered to pay costs of £480,000
Hertfordshire Oil Storage Ltd was found guilty of two offences and fined £1.4 million (£1million for safety; £450,000 for pollution) with costs of £1 million
TAV Engineering Ltd, which designed a crucial safety switch that failed, was found guilty of one offence, fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £500 costs
Installation and maintenance company Motherwell Control Systems 2003 Ltd fined £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £500 after being found guilty of one offence

Source: HSE 16th July 2010

Transport for London (TfL) and mayor Boris Johnson unveiled the first mirror in Tooting last week, and 37 more are due to be installed across the capital’s cycle superhighway routes for a six-month trial.

TfL says they give lorry drivers better visibility of cyclists at junctions and should reduce the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured in collisions with HGVs.

The trial coincides with a poster campaign highlighting the potential dangers cyclists put themselves in when they ride up the left hand side of HGVs at junctions.

FTA head of urban logistics policy Gordon Telling says that if the trial shows the mirrors are safe then more will be installed.

“It’s ideal for us, because we have gone as far as we can go with mirrors on trucks,” he says. “I am convinced from having seen one in place they will improve cyclists’ safety, but the first step is to prove they are safe to have in use.”

A Memorandum of Understanding has also been signed, which commits the mayor, TfL and the FTA to work together to improve cycle safety. Telling says the FTA hopes eventually to use the agreement as leverage to relax delivery restrictions.

“This agreement is to head off sabre rattlers that say ban trucks,” he explains. “We are saying no, a careful and considered process is needed.”

Source: Road Transport
Thursday 08 July 2010

According to Capita Learning and Development, which interviewed 500 senior managers, the majority (70%) fear inadequate staff skills are the greatest threat to their ability to capitalise on the recovery.

More than two thirds of business leaders admit their under-trained workforce is struggling to cope with expanded job remits following waves of job cuts during recession. And as the economy moves out of the downturn, two fifths (40%) estimate at least half of employee skills risk becoming obsolete.

The study attributes the problem to the inability of companies’ learning and development (L&D) functions to adapt to strategic change. L&D departments have failed to deliver the skills businesses needed to fight recession and position for growth.

Senior managers are concerned about their staff’s ability to adapt to the demands of the changing business environment.

Over a third of leaders (36%) lack confidence that their employees have the skills required to deliver the firm’s upturn strategy, with close to half (46%) casting doubt on their L&D department’s ability to provide these learning services.

Over half (55%) claim their firm is failing to deliver the necessary training for recovery. And a similar number fear for their company’s ability to respond to surges in demand (51%), retrain and redeploy people where required (47%) and identify where current skills are becoming obsolete (49%).

Employees are also still struggling to catch up with the impact of recession. More than two thirds (67%) of business leaders are concerned their employees are struggling to cope with expanded remits following job cuts.

More than half (52%) describe their L&D function as slow to respond to the changing requirements of their business during economic turbulence. But going forward, almost as many (43%) expect no significant change to L&D delivery over the next two to three years.

Chris Sharp, managing director, Capita Learning & Development, said: “The post-recession landscape demands a range of new skills. Yet the UK workforce is critically lacking essential capabilities.

“Firms have failed to provide the right training through turbulent times and to arm their staff with the skills needed for recovery. There is a real risk that this will leave UK plc exposed when the upturn finally arrives.”

Source: HRMagazine

VOSA officers issued the drivers with £200 fixed penalties at Portsmouth Docks on August 16 last year, but both men questioned VOSA’s power to enforce the regulations, arguing that the docks were private land and that VOSA had no authority there.

Keith Jelfs of Bracknell, who worked for Dutch operator DWC International BV appeared at Portsmouth Magistrates Court on June 10. Magistrates found him guilty of the overloading offence and fined him £500, plus £1,094 in court costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

Peter Orr, a sole-trader from Plymouth was also found guilty of an overloading offence. He appeared at Salisbury Magistrates on June 21 and received a £500 fine, plus £2,000 costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

In both cases, magistrates were unimpressed with the drivers’ argument. They determined that the location was considered to be a ‘road’ for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to which the public had access and that VOSA had every right to be undertaking enforcement action at that location.

The new powers will help them to ensure that commercial vehicles and their drivers comply with road traffic law. The new powers would also help VOSA to enforce new cabotage rules, which govern the amount of UK domestic work hauliers from outside the UK can undertake.

Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Transport, said:

“If our roads are to remain among the safest in the world we need to make sure that the drivers and vehicles on our roads are fit to be there. VOSA’s work is vital in keeping dangerous vehicles and drivers off the road.

“These plans will also help VOSA to enforce the rules governing the amount of domestic work hauliers from outside the UK can undertake, helping to make sure that UK operators do not face unfair competition for business.”

This consultation closes on 13 August 2010.

Source: VOSA

At a public inquiry held in Eastbourne last week, Deputy Traffic Commissioner (DTC) for the South East and Metropolitan area Miles Dorrington cut the licence of Uckfield, Sussex-based AM Skip and Plant Hire from 10 vehicles to seven, to be carried out over a period of 10 consecutive days, before September.

The inquiry heard how in the past five years, VOSA officials had handed out a total of four prohibitions to vehicles run by the company, following roadside checks.

On one truck stopped, a red warning light lamp on the dashboard was showing, and an inspection revealed a defective forward tilting cab retention device, with the cab locking bolts not engaged.

A report by Neil Cowling, VOSA vehicle examiner, said: “Mr Mitchell’s facilities are not satisfactory.

“The workshop is very basic and does not have any way to confirm a brake does not work without sending it onto the road.”

Richard Orridge, representing AM, said the company is currently introducing a nil defect reporting system, weekly random checks on drivers, rolling road brake testing every quarter and pre-MOT checks for authorised vehicles.

The DTC warned AM that if it was called to another public inquiry within the next five years, and adverse findings were made, it could expect “severe regulatory action”.

Source: Road Transport
30 June 2010

Global logistics company, Exel Europe Ltd, based at Midsummer Boulevard, Milton Keynes, pleaded guilty to breaching sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and were today sentenced at Nottingham Crown Court.

Imperial Tobacco Ltd, of Upton Road, Bristol, also pleaded guilty to breaching sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the 1974 Act.

The court heard that on 7 September 2007, Cotgrave man, Gary Brooks (42), a heavy goods driver with Exel, was trying to collect a loaded trailer from the Imperial Tobacco site at Bull Close Road, Lenton Industrial Estate, Nottingham.

Mr Brooks intended to attach the trailer to his cab. But as he was doing this the lorry gradually rolled forward, trapping him between the front of the vehicle and a building. He suffered fatal head injuries.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that drivers working for both Exel and Imperial did not routinely apply the trailer brakes to make sure the vehicles were safely parked. Some drivers had not been properly trained or assessed and no checks had been carried out to monitor the use of trailer brakes in the yard.

Both companies had identified the risk to workers but had failed to implement appropriate control measures. Their method of working ignored published safety guidance which meant that drivers, other employees, visitors and third party contractors were all at risk.

Following the sentencing HSE Inspector Frances Bailey said:

“This case was prompted by the tragic death of Gary Brooks, which could have been avoided had the companies involved ensured that all drivers routinely followed a safe system of work.

“In 2008/09 12 workers in the haulage industry died at work, while a further 1,500 were seriously injured. All haulage companies should know that it is their responsibility to check on safety practices and make sure drivers are following the right procedures.”

Source: HSE
2nd July 2010

Adam Phillips Plant Hire and Contractors Ltd of Laity Moor, Ponsanooth pleaded guilty to an offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act by failing to ensure the safety of employees by not providing a safe system for working on a roof.

The company was fined £4,000 with £1,694 costs.

New Generation Daffodils of Crowan, near Camborne, pleaded guilty to an offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act by failing to ensure that work at height was properly planned and appropriately supervised.

The company was fined £1,500 with £1,634 costs.

Adam Phillips Plant Hire was contracted by New Generation Daffodils to repair storm damaged roofs at their premises at Dixcarte, Crowan and work began on 2 May 2008.

The work did not include the use of edge protection, appropriate crawling boards or measures to prevent falls.

At the time of the accident the repair work was already completed, however an airline had been left on another roof which was made of metal profiled roofing sheets.

Adam Phillip’s employee, Daniel Ekers, walked along the metal roof to collect the air line. He began to pull the airline back to the compressor. A fragile rooflight on the metal roof was weathered and appeared similar in colour to the metal sheets.

Mr Ekers stepped on the fragile rooflight and fell through it 5 metres to the ground. He landed on some harvesting equipment inside the building. He narrowly missed landing on the blades of the equipment and sustained a fractured vertebra. He was taken to hospital and when discharged, received treatment over several weeks

HSE inspector, Barry Trudgian, said: “Despite the risks of roof work near fragile materials being well known, fatalities and serious injuries still occur. Risk assessment should always be suitable and sufficient. When applied to roofwork, a high risk activity, this is especially important. There is a wealth of free guidance available on the HSE website.”

Source: HSE
1st July 2010

The woman was taken to hospital with a suspected broken ankle after becoming trapped between the Keltbray lorry and a metal railing opposite Borough Tube station, at the junction of Borough High Street and Great Dover Street.

It is the latest serious crash involving construction lorries in the London Bridge area, where the 310-metre high Shard tower is being built within a new commercial development.

A Keltbray tipper-truck was involved in a crash that killed Muhammad “Haris” Ahmed, a 21-year-old King’s College medical student, in March.

Scotland Yard said the 26-year-old HGV driver is on bail while enquiries continue. Cyclists’ websites have been inundated with concerns about the number of HGVs in the area.

The firm, which has worked with the Met police and Transport for London on improving driver awareness of cyclists, is the UK’s largest demolition contractor and is closely involved in the Shard project.

The latest collision happened at about noon on Wednesday last week. The London Ambulance Service said it received reports of a woman aged about 40 suffering serious leg injuries. The lorry driver stopped at the scene. He was not arrested.

A Keltbray spokesman said: “Our thoughts are with the cyclist and the driver — from our subcontractor Primagrange — involved in this accident and we do wish the cyclist a full and speedy recovery.

“The circumstances of the collision are a matter for the Metropolitan police and we obviously cannot comment on the details of how this collision took place, but it is important to note that Keltbray places safety at the forefront of all aspects of its operations — and in particular vehicle movements in busy, highly congested locations such as central London.”

Mr Ahmed was on his way to Guy’s Hospital campus when he died on March 9. Another man, professor David Vilaseca, 46, a Hispanic scholar at Royal Holloway, University of London, was killed on February 9 in a collision with a lorry owned by Ron Smith Recycling.

Source: Evening Standard
28th June 2010

The proposals, which will be open to consultation until 13 August, would create specialist stopping officers appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport who do not need to be individually accredited by chief police officers.

VOSA would have the power to stop foreign and domestic vehicles and drivers to carry out compliance inspections throughout the UK including, for the first time, Scotland, where VOSA has not had the power to stop vehicles before.

The same powers would extend to Driver and Vehicle Agency examiners in Northern Ireland.

Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Transport, says: “These plans will help VOSA to enforce the rules governing the amount of domestic work hauliers from outside the UK can undertake, helping to make sure that UK operators do not face unfair competition for business.

“The new powers will also free up police time as VOSA will be able to operate more independently.”

Currently VOSA inspectors have the power to stop a vehicle only if they suspect there is a breach in compliance, but the proposed change to the law would see VOSA being able to proactively stop and inspect vehicles without the need for police assistance.

The Department for Transport estimates that the retraining of 16 existing VOSA staff to become stopping officers, as well as the purchase of seven specialist stopping vehicles, would cost £340,000. Its annual running cost would be £83,300. It estimates a total cost saving to the police of £2.88m.

The Road Haulage Association says it welcomes any attempts by VOSA to improve compliance levels among domestic and foreign operators in the UK.

Source: Road Transport.com
Wednesday 30 June 2010

In March, a video appeared on the internet of an incident in January where a Renault Clio was trapped at the front of one of Arclid’s tanker trucks on the motorway. At a driver-conduct hearing last week, Bell described the Renault driver’s attempted undertaking manoeuvre as “ill-advised” and completely exonerated the company, and its driver John Tomlinson.

Peter Conway, transport manager at Arclid, says: “Car drivers continue to take risks when driving close to HGVs every day because they simply do not realise what the driver can see – and what he can’t – or how much longer it takes a 44-tonne truck to slow or stop than it would take the average car.

“Only driver awareness of the perils of cutting in front of HGV vehicles will really address the dangers highlighted by this incident and prevent similar incidents from happening in the future.”

Bell has also urged hauliers to install close-proximity mirrors on older trucks.

Source: Road Transport
Wednesday 02 June 2010

In a written decision following a public inquiry in May, Western area TC Sarah Bell, ruled that Christopher Muir, director of Hungerford, Berks-based BRT Horse Transport International, could not be nominated as transport manager in any traffic area from 30 July.

On 6 December 2009, a prohibition had been issued against BRT, for failure to use a tachograph on a vehicle.

However, according to Bell, a “perfectly reasonable question” at interview under caution by a VOSA traffic examiner, had resulted in Muir responding “B*****ks to EU rules.”

The TC said: “Whilst Mr Muir apologised for the use of language at the public inquiry, in my judgement it sums up his approach to compliance.”

Another document compiled by a VOSA vehicle examiner found that many preventive maintenance inspection sheets for company vehicles did not show brake tests and/or tyre tread depths.

“The reports of the vehicle examiner and traffic examiner taken separately and together demonstrate a blatant disregard for the operator licensing regime,” Bell added.

The TC, who also revoked BRT’s licence, said the findings of the VOSA officers made “unedifying reading” and described Muir’s answers to her questions at the inquiry as “disingenuous”.

In a separate O-licence application heard at the same time, J&B Horse Transport was granted authorisation for one vehicle, with the condition that Christopher Muir could not act as its nominated transport manager.

Source : RoadTransport.com
Roger Brown – Wednesday 30 June 2010

Two contractors from Mechanical Cleansing Services Ltd were working at the Bodymoor Heath complex, near Sutton Coldfield, when one of them plunged three metres through a fragile rooflight.

The company had been employed to drain fuel tanks on a roof during demolition of an old building on the site.

Stratford-upon-Avon Magistrates heard that the 34-year-old victim was cleaning the tanks and fell through a rooflight as he was heading towards a ladder to get down. He broke bones in his heels and was off work for more than six months.

The club, its contractor and Mechanical Cleansing Services’ director, Damon Roe, all admitted health and safety offences.

An internal ladder was blocked so Mr Roe decided to use a ladder against the outside front of the building to access the roof’s plant room.

However, both he and the football club failed to inform workers of the dangers or how to avoid the risk of falling through the fragile rooflights.
HSE inspector Carol Southerd said:

“Work at height can be very dangerous if not properly planned and although the victim’s injuries were severe, they could have been much worse.

“If the internal ladder had been used, then this incident would not have happened. A simple conversation with the club was all it would have taken to arrange for the blocked ladder to be cleared.

“When working at height all workers must have adequate instruction, training and equipment. It is vital that risks are adequately assessed and managed before employees undertake tasks in hazardous locations. There was clear failure to warn the victim or his colleague of the dangerous condition of the roof or to provide safe access to the tank.”

Aston Villa FC Ltd admitted breaching Regulation 9(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005. It was fined £1,350 and ordered to pay £1,610 costs.

Mechanical Cleansing Services Ltd – of Aston, Birmingham – admitted breaching Regulation 3(6)(a) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. It was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £1,610 costs.

Damon Roe, a director of Mechanical Cleansing Services Ltd, admitted breaching Section 37(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 after failing to provide adequate information about access to the site for his workers. He was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £1,610 costs.

Source: Birmingham Post June 1st 2010

SITA UK Limited was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) following the death of Gary Carter, 32, at the Cranford landfill site on 4 January 2007.

The company, of Grenfell Road, Maidenhead, Berkshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £210,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £38,000.

Northampton Crown Court heard that Mr Carter, of Kidwelly, Carmarthenshire, arrived at the site to empty his refuse lorry and, like all the lorries emptying at the site that day, had to be assisted onto and off the tipping area due to the wet weather and soft ground conditions on the site.

After his lorry was towed to the tipping area by a bulldozer, Mr Carter discharged only part of his load. To shed the rest he had to move forward but his lorry had become too bogged down in soft ground.

The driver of the compactor, which was spreading the rubbish behind his lorry, radioed to him to say he would drive up behind Mr Carter’s lorry and push it forward with his own vehicle.

At the same time the bulldozer reversed up to the front of Mr Carter’s lorry to give him a tow. Both tried to help Mr Carter move, but without communicating with each other. When the compactor started to push the lorry forward, Mr Carter was attaching a tow rope from the bulldozer to the front of his lorry and was crushed to death between his lorry and back of the bulldozer.

He died at the scene.

The court heard from the prosecution that new working arrangements had been introduced a few days before the accident without having been properly risk assessed. Further, that SITA had not defined the supervisory roles for their staff on the site and that site rules on pushing lorries were ambiguous.

HSE Inspector Roy Bush said: “Every company has a legal responsibility to take care of people working on their site, whether they are employed by them or not.

“All companies are required to assess risks, eliminate them where possible and provide proper control measures to deal with the risks that remain. Having clear site rules that deal with the significant risks on site and making sure staff understand them and stick to them is absolutely vital if people on sites like this are to be protected from serious injury and even death.

“Sadly, in this case, the prosecution shows that the company did not take these steps, with tragic consequences for Mr Carter and his family.”

Council employee Mark Morgan was driving the one tonne vehicle through woodland near Moel Gilau Lane, Bettws on 25 September 2008 when the truck began to slide.

It then toppled over – trapping the driver’s left leg between the vehicle and a tree. He needed to be airlifted to hospital for an operation on his broken leg.

A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation showed the vehicle was not suitable for the gradient where it was being used. The council also failed to carry out a formal, written risk assessment of the work or the selection of plant being used.

The investigation also found there was no evidence that staff were adequately trained in the use of small items of plant equipment such as the dumper truck in this incident.

The Council pleaded guilty to a breach of Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 at Bridgend Magistrates’ Court on Monday (24 May). They were fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £5,623.60.

After the hearing HSE Inspector Ceri Beynon said: “Risks associated with improper use should never be underestimated and this incident could easily have been prevented.

“Employers have a duty of care to ensure that drivers are suitably trained, risks are properly assessed, and that adequate safety measures are in place.

“Those involved in the planning and execution of work involving the use of plant or equipment need to ensure they are fully aware of the safety limitations of use.”

Source: HSE May 2010

Who is this course for?
New and experienced drivers looking for to improve their health, wellbeing and safety.

What is it about?
This training is designed to create an awareness of the importance of health and wellbeing and the risks to personal safety for professional LGV drivers.

Content
• The importance of a healthy eating
• The risks to health and wellbeing
• The symptoms of driver stress, fatigue and apnoea
• The importance of the correct cycle of work and rest
• Effects of alcohol, drugs and other substances
• Awareness of how to minimise risks to health and wellbeing.

This is a half-day module (3 ½ hours training time) comprising of lectures, group discussions, exercises, DVD and case studies. You must take a second 3 ½ hour course from the list on the same day or complete it within 24 hours of starting the first one to complete a 7 hour session of Periodic Training for the Driver CPC.

This course is also accredited with the Proskills Academy.

This course can be combined with one of the following modules:
• Customer Focus
• Dynamic Risk Assessment
• Safe Loading and Unloading of Vehicles
• Understanding Drivers Hours Legislation
• An Introduction to Tachographs
• Eco-driving – Save Fuel, Save Money
• Drivers’ Vehicle Checks

The company has been fined £250,000 and ordered to pay £100,000 in prosecution costs.

The court heard that on 6 April 2006 admin manager Alan Fletcher, two cargo handlers and a supervisor were present as cases of glass were being unloaded from an open top freight container.

Mr Fletcher was crushed when he tried to stop the final case (2 tonnes) falling as it was being lifted from the container.

Inadequate training, assessment and planning

Evidence was presented showing that Mr Fletcher (aged 59) and his colleagues had not received appropriate training in lifting operations.

In addition, a suitable risk assessment and formal planning was not carried leading to the case not being properly secured.

HSE Inspector Morag Irwin said the incident “ highlights the importance of having an effective system in place for managing health and safety generally and specifically when lifting heavy goods, and I hope it serves as a warning to other companies.

“In this case, the measures in place were grossly inadequate; there was a failure to carry out a risk assessment or formal planning, as well as a lack of training, all of which resulted in the tragic and unnecessary death of an employee that so easily could have been avoided.

Family statement

In a rare move HSE has published a statement by Jackie Fletcher, Alan Fletcher’s widow: “It’s four years since my husband lost his life at Roadways Container Logistics, and I’m relieved that today’s verdict finally allows some sentiment of closure. It ends a long, harrowing and incredibly frustrating legal process – a process that was seemingly hindered from day one by delays and bickering from the RCL team. Certain parties seem to have lost sight of why we’re here today. And that’s because a kind, loving man had his life cruelly ended in simply doing his job. That’s what’s important and no amount of punishment or recrimination will ever change that. My only hope now is that lessons have been learned, and that no-one else has to endure the heartache of losing a loved one in this way.”

Comment

This tragic death occurred at the fixed premises of this logistics company. However, there have been a number of fatalities on construction projects during the last 12 months involving the off-loading of materials from vehicles.

There is potential for significant harm from poorly managed lifting operations. All lifting operations must to be properly planned, supervised and carried out in a safe manner.

This case also demonstrates that the courts are implementing the Sentencing Council Guidelines which state that fines in health and safety prosecutions involving a death should start at £100k.

This death pre-dates the Corporate Manslaughter Act 2007 under which the fines are expected to start at £500k.

Source: HSE May 2010

People at work can suffer injuries or be taken ill. It doesn’t matter whether the injury or illness is caused by the work they do or not, it is important to give them immediate attention and call an ambulance in serious cases. First aid at work covers the arrangements you should make to ensure this happens. It can save lives and prevent minor injuries becoming major ones.

All employers have a general duty to provide, or ensure the availability of, adequate and appropriate equipment, facilities and personnel for enabling first aid to be rendered.

Who is this course for?
The course is designed for managers, supervisors and personnel responsible for the provision of first aid at work.

What is it about?
The aim of the course is to provide course members with the necessary knowledge and skills to ensure that arrangements are in place to provide adequate first aid equipment and personnel in the workplace.

Course outline
This is a structured course that covers what we believe to be the most important issues and it is essential that it does. However, our approach in delivering the course is flexible and pragmatic. Our trainer is an experienced health and safety consultant who is able to provide sound advice and guidance on your own specific circumstances. The course is intended to be interactive and our trainer will encourage your participation. He will welcome any contribution that you can make, based upon your own experience. There will, therefore, be plenty of opportunity to focus on the things that matter to you.

Content
• What is first aid at work?
• Legislation – Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981
• Criminal and civil liabilities
• Assessment of needs
• Nature of the work
• Common workplace hazards
• Other factors
• First aid personnel – selection and training
• First aid equipment
• First aid rooms
• Information to employers
• Records.

During the course, delegates will undertake written assessments and practical exercises to determine the knowledge, understanding and skills they have obtained from it. The Focale Certificate of Achievement will be awarded to course delegates attaining the required standard.

Learning objectives
On completion of the course, delegates should be able to:
• Understand the definition of first aid at work
• Understand the main legal requirements for first aid at work
• Carry out an assessment of needs
• Understand the factors to consider in the selection and training of first aid personnel
• Ensure that suitable and sufficient equipment is available
• Provide employees with the necessary information
• Keep adequate records.

Other relevant courses available

Accident Investigation and Reporting
An Introduction to Behavioural Safety
Directors’ and Senior Management Responsibilities for Managing Safety
Fire Safety Awareness
Risk Assessment, Safe Systems of Work and Permits to Work
Safe Use of Work Equipment (PUWER 1998)
Supervising Health and Safety
IOSH Managing Safely
IOSH Working Safely.

Fire is one of the most serious hazards present in the workplace. Its potential effects in terms of loss of life and damage to property, equipment etc is enormous.

Virtually every fire will result in disruption to work flows. A devastating fire will almost inevitably lead to loss of production or productive activity which can lead to loss of orders, a loss of customers and a loss of jobs. A significant amount of businesses never recover from the effects of a large fire.

Who is this course for?
The course is designed for managers, supervisors and personnel responsible for fire safety, in particular for those new to fire safety management or as a update/refresher course.

What is it about?
The aim of the course is to provide course members with the necessary knowledge and skills to carry out basic fire risk assessments and to consider the necessary fire preventative and protective measures within the workplace.

Content
• The nature of fire
• The costs of fire within the workplace
• Fire safety legislation – Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 – known as the Fire Safety Order
• Fire risk assessment – five step approach
• Fire hazard identification
• Persons at risk
• Risk evaluation
• Records and actions
• Reviewing and revising assessments
• Managing fire safety
• Preventing fires
• Providing fire detection and fire warning systems
• Providing fire fighting equipment
• Providing means of escape in case of fire
• Providing fire emergency procedures and training
• Action plans.

This is a structured course that covers what we believe to be the most important issues and it is essential that it does. However, our approach in delivering the course is flexible and pragmatic. Our trainer is an experienced health and safety consultant who is able to provide sound advice and guidance on your own specific circumstances. The course is intended to be interactive and our trainer will encourage your participation. He will welcome any contribution that you can make, based upon your own experience. There will, therefore, be plenty of opportunity to focus on the things that matter to you.

All applicants must be registered as instructors with ITSSAR.

Trainers will be paid a daily rate for all training assignments.

Please send all CVs and covering letters to:

John
Focale Training
Initiative House
Stoke-on-Trent
Staffordshire
ST4 4DE

Closing date for applications is 4th June.

Magna Specialist Confectioners Ltd (MSC) was fined a total of £75,000 and ordered to pay costs of £37,500 by Shrewsbury Crown Court today (10 May 2010).

The company has already pleaded guilty on 9 December 2009 at Shrewsbury Crown Court to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. A previous prosecution of the company in February 2008, under the same regulation, had already led to the company being fined £25,000.

The court heard how on 22 February 2007, at Magna’s site on Stafford Park Nine, Telford, an employee was attempting to wipe up a leak of refrigerant inside the interlocked safety doors of a machine on the production line. As his head went through the doors into the machine, the powered part of the machinery moved forcefully to one side, closing the gap between it and a static part of the machine to approximately 5cm (2 inches). The impact to the front of his head did not fully trap his head in the gap but luckily threw him out of the machine and prevented instant death.

The employee spent two weeks in a coma and serious head injuries have left him with a significant level of blindness and deafness, loss of taste and smell as well as suffering personality changes.

Speaking after the case, HSE investigating inspector Guy Dale said:

“It’s a fundamental expectation that employees should be able to work in safety. Assessing risks and implementing controls often only requires simple, cost-effective actions to be taken.

“An operative should not have been able to get to the dangerous parts of the machine while it was working at full production speed. When the interlocked doors were opened, the production line should have been designed to stop.

“The injured man is only in his early 30s and had the promise of a healthy future but now has such permanent damage that his future prospects and employment potential are severely restricted. He has a wife and a young daughter born a few months after the incident occurred.

“The fine imposed by the Crown Court reflects that there was a previous history cataloguing systemic machinery guarding failures in the company and a lack of risk assessment leaving employees exposed to risk to their health and safety.”

Source: HSE May 2010

The White Van Roadshow will highlight the potential dangers in the industry, after five construction workers were killed in the North West last year.

The tour will see advisors from the construction industry and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) visit nine sites in Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Cheshire. They will focus on the risks from untidy sites, working at height, manual handling, transport, and asbestos and other dust-related diseases.

Representatives from leading companies in the construction industry will be among those attending the events, which will include practical demonstrations on new safety equipment.

Wayne Crumpton, HSE’s Principal Inspector for Construction in Merseyside and Cheshire, said:

“We’ll be spending a day at each site to meet as many construction workers as possible, and remind them of the dangers they face every day.

“Good health and safety doesn’t have to cost a lot of money. It can be as simple as making sure building sites are kept clean and tidy, or avoiding working on roofs in bad weather.

“The White Van Roadshow will aim to raise awareness about the risks workers on construction sites face every day. I hope it will help to cut the number of deaths and injuries in the future.”

The roadshow will set off from Ashton-in-Makerfield near Wigan on 17 May before visiting Ashton-under-Lyne on 18 May, Warrington on 19 and 20 May, and Liverpool on 21 May.

Week Two will see the white van visit Bootle in Merseyside on 24 May, Wirral on 25 May, Salford on 26 May and Buxton on 27 May, before ending its tour in Vauxhall in Liverpool on 28 May.

The White Van Roadshow has been organised as part of the Working Well Together initiative – a partnership between HSE and the construction industry – which aims to improve health and safety in the sector.

Source: HSE May 2010

Westhoughton, Lancs-based Walter Forshaw appeared before North Western Deputy TC Simon Evans. The company had previously pleaded guilty before the Rochdale Magistrates to failing to produce tachograph records, including 3,000 missing km for which it received a conditional discharge.

Transport manager Simon Jones said the next generation of the Forshaw family had taken over and was modernising the business.

The company has moved into new offices where it has put proper systems in place, including a training facility. All vehicles have been equipped with a tracker system that enables the company to see who was driving, when and for how long. Managing director Andrew Forshaw said it had been difficult to wrest control from family members who had been managing things for 35 to 40 years. He had taken over in 2008 from his parents Keith and Joyce Forshaw and was the fourth generation in charge.

Cutting the licence, the DTC warned that there would be very little room for manoeuvre even by the most charitable TC if the company had similar problems in the future.

Source: Road Transport – 15th April 2010

Following the ten-year anniversary of the new licences, the confusion over the validity period of the licences is now coming to light. DVLA figures reveal that while over 16,000 licences expired last summer, so far only around 11,500 drivers have renewed them. This leaves a further 4,500 licences outstanding. If they are still on the road, these drivers may not be aware that they are committing a criminal offence. The offence of ‘failing to surrender their licence’ could result in a fine for the driver of up to £1,000.

There’s no wonder many drivers are confused. Most drivers are probably unaware of the meaning of all the dates and figures written in small print on their licence. The date the licence is due to expire is written on the front at “4b”. However, this entry is meaningless unless the driver turns the card over to read the small print on the back which explains that this date is the date of expiry of the licence. The expiry date is also easily confused with the list of other dates on the back of the card. Those dates actually set out how long the driver is registered to hold a licence – that is until their 70th birthday. There is however, no explanation of the significance of that list of dates anywhere on the photocard, and so, at a glance, they could easily be assumed to be the expiry dates of the licence.

The DVLA have admitted that they are unable to say whether motorists were told the licences would expire when they were first issued. Drivers who used to own a paper licence and have since changed to a photocard licence are potentially even less likely to be aware of the need to renew their licence than new drivers, having been used to the old system.

The authorities have argued that, unlike paper licences, photocard licences need updating to allow enforcement agencies to properly identify drivers and to prevent fraudulent use. However, although when a driver renews his or her licence, they are asked to submit a photograph, there appears to be no checks in place to ensure that the photograph submitted is actually that of the driver in question or that the photograph is particularly recent. Unlike passport photographs, there is no need to get new photos certified by a professional. Therefore it is unclear to see exactly how this system is helping to reduce fraudulent use.

The agency say they are sending reminders to drivers whose photocard licence is due to expire, but already instances are being revealed where letters had not been received. Although the information is there if you look hard enough, the government website http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing does not make it obvious that photocard licences expire after ten years.

It is at least of some comfort that The Association of British Insurers and the Department for Transport have reassured motorists that failing to renew their licence does not affect their insurance cover.

The consequences of the new rules are as yet uncertain. Nonetheless, with another 300,000 photocard licences due to expire over the coming year, the number of invalid licences are likely to soar.

Source: Road Transport

Its aim? To reduce the number of deaths and injuries linked to workplace transport.

The reality? Increasing the length of time hauliers have their vehicles parked at the roadside waiting for inspections by VOSA/HSE.

The HSE has issued a press release that over the coming weeks, its officers together with the VOSA will be undertaking spot checks on vehicles to ensure that loads are being transported securely.

Loading and unloading accounts for one in five workplace transport incidents – many resulting from loads not being properly restrained. Example cases involving the death of a worker unloading a vehicle where the load was unsafe include: DHL Exel being ordered to pay over £33,000 in fines and costs (written safety procedures for dealing with unsafe loads had not been supplied) and McDonald and Ross Ltd being ordered to pay a £30,000 fine (failure to assess the risk and train drivers on loading/unloading).

Unsafe loads on vehicles injure more than 1,200 people a year and cost UK businesses millions of pounds in damaged goods. A similar initiative of spot checks by the HSE/VOSA in April 2009 found close to 80% of loads were not sufficiently restrained. Drivers and/or businesses that are found to have unsafe loads face fines or even risk having the vehicle ordered off the road by the issuing of a prohibition notice.

It is not only the fines that operators must be concerned about, but the potential adverse effect upon their operator compliance risk score (VOSA-held intelligence) and more generally, the Traffic Commissioner’s perception of that operator. Adverse publicity is a major concern for operators in incidents where loads are shed. Such incidents often result in press attention and are usually treated as another means of generating contempt towards the haulage industry.

That is not to say that such incidents cannot have incredibly serious consequences. Recently it was reported that a pregnant woman, Kelli Chapman, was waiting at traffic lights when a 1.5-tonne steel girder fell from a passing lorry, and missed her by just 3 inches. The consequences of Ms Chapman being taller than her 4ft 11 height are unimaginable.

But not all insecure load cases involve such lucky escapes. In 2006 a 24-year-old was killed after a 30-tonne digger rolled off a lorry and hit the car that she was a passenger in. The operator, Munro & Sons (Highland) Ltd, of Alness, Easter Ross, admitted a breach of health and safety law and was fined £3,750 for failing to provide the transporter’s driver with adequate load securing equipment and allowing excess weight on the vehicle.

A further case in 2006 saw a driver killed when he was carrying 25 tonnes of sheet steel. When approaching a roundabout the sheet steel slid forwards, breaching the back of his cab, killing the driver due to crush injuries. The HSE found that the drivers for Coastal Container Line were inadequately trained and transport operations were not properly planned, with loads not being secured. The company would rely on the sheer weight of the steel and friction to hold it in place when it was being transported. For this, the company was ordered to pay a fine and costs of over £176,000.

The HSE has launched a useful section on its website for operators, available at www.hse.gov.uk/loadsafety. This website covers the dangers of insecure loads, how to properly secure loads, and the planning of load handling. It is recommended that to avoid potential HSE/Police/VOSA prosecutions, operators ensure that a full focus is placed on load safety, both in terms of training drivers and implementing safe procedures. Risk assessments and load plans must be undertaken, and guidance on each is available on the HSE website.

Operators must get used to the HSE and VOSA increasingly joining forces to regulate the haulage industry. Inevitably the type of non-compliance that VOSA are interested in (drivers’ hours issues, vehicle maintenance etc) come hand in hand with risks to health and safety.

Source: Road Transport – April 2010

Who is this course for?
This course is aimed at transport managers/ goods vehicle operators licence holders looking to ensure that their directors, managers and drivers are aware of their individual and collective responsibility to drive safely and stay legal. It covers vans and LGV’s to ensure that all of your team can be trained together to ensure that they work together to drive up safety standards.

Content
• Operator’s licence requirements
• Management responsibilities
• Drivers’ responsibilities
• The case for safety
• Vehicle Checks
• Defect Reporting
• VOSA Vehicle Checks
• Safe Loading and Unloading of Vehicles
• Driver Behaviour
• Hazard Spotting
• Incident Reporting
• Introduction to Drivers’ Hours and Working Time Directive
• Introduction to Tachographs
• Drivers’ Responsibilities

This course is a very in depth course covering a number of topics designed to provide all of your staff with an understanding of their legal responsibilities with regards to driving safely.

There are a number of supplementary course available to explore some of the topics in detail, many of which can count towards Driver CPC Training time.

This course can be created as a bespoke company course using you own logos, case studies and photos to ensure that all of your staff are trained to your requirements. Bespoke assessment, evidence of learning can be produced for you training and development plans.

This training course can be delivered as an in-company course at any UK location or at our training centre in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire.

Call 01782 41533 to book your training course.

Introduction:
The use of any vehicle at a quarry will generally involve a risk of the vehicle overturning. Quarry edge protection should be designed to overturn a vehicle in order to arrest its progress if all other systems have failed (i.e. the edge protection has failed to stop the vehicle dead or simply redirect it back onto the roadway).

Background:
An employee of a contractor was killed when the 4×4 road vehicle he was driving overturned on a haul road at a quarry. Although the operator was thrown clear during the incident, the roof of the vehicle collapsed.

Action required:
Employers should review their arrangements to ensure that:
The risk of vehicle rollover has been adequately assessed.
Where a risk exists, any vehicle exposed to that risk has adequate protection for the operator in the event of an overturn.
If necessary, vehicles should be fitted with additional rollover protection such as rollover cages.
Seat belts should be fitted and worn.
Employees should:

Co-operate with their employer in following safe working practices.

Source: HSE

Philip Pearce was tasked with preparing the cabins for renting to construction firms. He had climbed on top of a stack of two portable units to attach lifting chains at A-Plant Hire’s Maidstone accommodation depot, when he fell five metres and died at the scene.

Pearce, who had only been working for the company for three months, was not wearing a safety harness at the time and there was no edge protection on the unit.

The HSE investigation discovered A-Plant had a safe system for work on top of the units, which required workers to climb a secure ladder and wear a harness attached to an inertia reel that would lock if they slipped to prevent them falling.

But Maidstone Crown Court heard A-Plant had neither issued workers with the safety kit nor trained them to use it. Despite moving 15 accommodation units per day, most workers at the Maidstone depot did not know the company had a safety procedure for working on top of the cabins.

Though the company, which has more than 1900 employees and 100 sites across the UK, is accredited to the OHSAS 18001 standard and has had its risk management systems assessed by the British Standards institution (BSi), it failed to supervise and monitor work practices on site.

“It is completely inexcusable that the company had identified the risks, prepared an adequate procedure to manage the risk, and then failed to implement that procedure to protect their workers,” said HSE inspector John Underwood.

“Health and safety is not just about filling in forms or thinking about risk, it’s about taking action.”
On 13 April 2010, the company was fined £200,000 with £15,698 in costs for failing to protect Pearce, contrary to Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

Source: healthandsafetyatwork.com

John McDonald, 38, ignored flashing red lights and tried to shoot over the tracks before the 90mph London Kings Cross to Cambridge train powered past.

But the descending barriers crashed down onto the 44-tonne sewage tanker at the crossing in Foxton, Cambridgeshire.

Terrified motorists looked on as the driver of the approaching train slammed on the brakes and screeched to a halt just before the wreckage.

But commuters and motorists faced major disuption as the A10 road was closed for two hours and trains were forced to crawl past the scene while the gates were repaired.

McDonald, who admitted failing to comply with a traffic signal on December 12 last year, escaped a driving ban. Instead he was given three penalty points on his license, fined £170 and ordered to pay £45 costs.
A second charge of driving without due care and attention was withdrawn.

British Transport Police said the crash could have been tragic.
“McDonald’s actions were extremely reckless,” PC Tony Orton, investigating officer for the British Transport Police (BTP), said. “Had a train been closer to the crossing we could have been looking at far worse consequences. Drivers must realise that they are not simply risking their own lives when they ignore the warning lights – they are also risking the lives of those who are travelling on the trains. Working with Network Rail, officers will continue to carry out high-profile operations to educate drivers about level crossing safety.
However, if people do blatantly ignore the law we will have no hesitation in pursuing prosecutions in court.”

In the same court two months ago another driver had three points put on his license for failing to stop at the same crossing.

Source: SKY News

The firm was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after three tonnes of steel plates fell on 22-year-old Netherton man, Ross Beddow, at the firm’s base in Wombourne.

Corus (UK) Ltd, registered at 30 Millbank, London, was also ordered to pay £112,500 costs at Stafford Crown Court today after it pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

The court heard how on 4 January 2007, Mr Beddow, who was employed by A Hingley Transport Ltd, was helping to load steel plates onto a lorry. A Corus employee was operating a crane to lift a three-tonne pack of steel from a trailer, however, the load was not level, and as it was lifted it fell on top of Mr Beddow and killed him.

An HSE investigation showed the system of work for loading steel was unsafe. Not all the individual tasks involved had been evaluated and there was scope for misunderstanding between workers.

HSE inspector Dr Wai-Kin Liu said:

“This was a tragedy that could and should have been avoided. All the steps involved in an overall task should be analysed to create a safe system of work, and the consequences of something going wrong should always be taken into account.

“Anyone can make errors – no matter how well trained and motivated they are – but employers must develop a safe way of working that helps to prevent mistakes and reduces the severity of the consequences if they do occur. If Corus had a safe system of working then Mr Beddow would not have been killed simply doing his job.”

Source HSE – April 2010

“QUARRY operatives are among those workers being warned not to operate variable-reach trucks, commonly known as telehandlers, if the right-hand side window is missing or broken, following a recent fatal incident in Scotland.

A 36-year-old man was apparently leaning through the broken window aperture of such a machine when he was crushed and fatally injured by the descending boom. It is the third such fatality in the last seven years.”

The side window on telehandlers is designed to prevent operator access to the boom, but if the glass screen is broken or missing, operators may be tempted to lean out of the window aperture, for instance to adjust a mirror, and may inadvertently lower the boom on to themselves without being able to stop it.

The Health and Safety Executive has issued a Safety Notice recommending that machines in this condition be removed from use until the window has been replaced, and reminding users of their duty to carry out daily checks of the truck, which should include the condition of the cab windows.

Source: HSE – Safe Quarry – March 2010

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted PW Mills (Cradley) Ltd of Bassett Road, Halesowen over the failings. The company pleaded guilty earlier this year at Walsall Magistrates Court to two counts of breaching regulation 9(1) and one count of breaching regulation 17(b) of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. PW Mills (Cradley) Ltd also admitted breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

The manager of the company at the time, Roy Anthony Halden of Hillary Crest, Rugeley, Staffordshire pleaded guilty to one count of breaching Section 36(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 at the Wolverhampton Crown Court on Monday 7 December 2009.

The court heard that the company removed asbestos from industrial units in Crescent Works Industrial Park, Darlaston in December 2007 and January 2008, but did not notify HSE of the work which is required by law. Asbestos debris was left in the work area, and the firm sent another team to clean up the site the following month, again without notifying HSE.

HSE investigating Inspector Mike Ford said:

“Asbestos is the single greatest cause of work-related deaths in the UK and regulations around its removal are in place for a reason. HSE must be notified of any asbestos removal work being carried out.

“We will not hesitate to take action against companies and individuals who flout the rules.”

Source: HSE Dec 09

A judge last week adjourned the first case to be tried under the Corporate Manslaughter Act 2007 until October because the director of the company charged needs “urgent and intensive” medical attention.
Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings is charged with corporate manslaughter.

The firm’s director Peter Eaton is charged with unlawful killing through gross negligence.

Both are being prosecuted following the death of junior geologist and employee Alexander Wright, 27, who died in a trench collapse at Stroud, Gloucestershire in September 2008.

Eaton faces charges as an individual and on behalf of the company and could face life imprisonment if found guilty.
His company could face an unlimited fine.

The trial had been due to start last Tuesday, but Eaton’s defence counsel Tim Horlock secured a three day adjournment on “medical grounds”.

“It would be unfair and oppressive for Eaton to participate in the trial at this time”

Judge Justice Field

Eaton underwent a further medical assessment last Thursday evening and was judged to be unwell. The nature of his illness was not disclosed, but the court heard on Friday that he would need 18 weeks of treatment.

The prosecution and defence counsels agreed to adjourn the trial until Eaton was fit.

Judge Justice Field told the jury that he had acceded to the defence’s application to adjourn this trial “for a longish period because the defendant requires urgent and intensive medical treatment”. Field ruled it would be “unfair and oppressive” for him to have to participate in the trial during this time.

Cotswold Geotechnical is the first company to be charged under the Corporate Manslaughter Act 2007. The new law aims to hold organisations to account if a workplace death can be attributed to serious managerial failures.

Prior to the Act a company could only be convicted of manslaughter if a “controlling mind” managing the company was judged to be personally liable for a death. Now a firm can be found guilty if “the way in which its activities are managed or organised amounts to a gross breach of a duty of care to the deceased”.

A pre-trial review is now scheduled for July so Eaton’s condition can be assessed.

Making the punishment fit the crime
Lawyers insist that smaller companies will not be disproportionately punished under the new sentencing guidelines for corporate manslaughter.

The new guidelines, published before the start of the Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings trial, state that fines for firms guilty of corporate manslaughter “may be millions of pounds and should seldom be below £500,000”.

Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings annual turnover was just £300,000 in 2007 according to the Geotechnical Services File 2008 published by NCE’s sister magazine Ground Engineering.

“The legislation is not particularly well written for smaller companies”, said Pinsent Masons health and safety defence partner Simon Joyston-Bechal.

“Despite this guidance looking overly punitive for smaller companies, one of the features of sentencing rules is that the financial means of the offender is taken into account”.

Norton Rose health and safety consultant David Beckenham agreed. “The current case will not give much new information regarding fines.

“The terminology in the new law is vague and leaves a lot to interpretation, but one of the things that must be considered is the employment of innocent parties.

“Only in exceptional cases will the judge impose a fine that will put the future of the company in jeopardy.”

The guidelines also recommend that companies be ordered to publicise their corporate manslaughter convictions. This order came into effect on 15 February so would not apply to Cotswold Geotechnical if convicted.

Convicted companies will be forced to tell shareholders and customers the details of cases, fines imposed and remedial work they are ordered to do.

Who are these NVQs for?
These NVQs are work-oriented qualifications and are suitable for those who undertake Management related activities. They are open to candidates of either gender and there are no entry barriers on grounds of race, creed or previous academic attainment or learning.

What is its purpose?
The aim of these qualifications is to recognise the skills and competences of candidates in the workplace. These qualifications provide individuals with an opportunity to demonstrate the skills and knowledge needed for a career in Management and Leadership. The units encompass a broad range of competencies from the Management and Leadership sector.

What are the benefits of these NVQs?

Employees will benefit from:
• A clearer understanding of their responsibility within their organisation
• The opportunity to develop new skills
• The recognition of existing skills

Employers will benefit from:
• Improved staff performance and motivation
• Improvements in the quality of service to customers
• The opportunity to improve customer retention levels.

Workplace transport failures have landed Rotherham Council and its contractor with fines totalling £105,000 after a reversing truck knocked down and killed a partially deaf council employee during road surfacing work.

Road worker Gordon Duffield died in May 2007 when an eight-wheeled tipper wagon operated by Brocklebank & Company (Demolition) hit him as it delivered asphalt to a site in Fitzwilliam Road in Rotherham.

The HSE’s investigation discovered that even though the tipper wagons had to reverse the entire length of the site, there was no control over vehicle movements.

No one was designated to direct the movement and unloading of the lorry, and despite being aware that Duffield was partially deaf as a result of exposure to noise at work, the council had not assessed whether it was suitable for him to continue as a road worker.

For its part, Brocklebank failed to take reasonably practicable steps to protect people from the risks of reversing vehicles.

“In particular,” said HSE principal inspector John Rowe, “instructions for the driver to do a 360 degree check were not communicated nor was CCTV fitted to eliminate the blind spot at the rear of the vehicle.”

At Doncaster Crown Court on 26 February, the judge fined Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council £75,000 plus £18,350 costs after it admitted failing to protect employees’ safety, contrary to Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act.

Brocklebank was fined £30,000 with £12,000 costs after it pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Act by not ensuring the safety of workers and others at the site.

Who is this course for?
Experienced and newly qualified drivers looking to save money by adopting a safe and fuel efficient driving style.

What is it about?
To show drivers the financial and environmental benefits of adopting a safe and fuel efficient driving style.

Content
• The role of the driver in Safe and Fuel Efficient Driving
• Financial costs and benefits
• Environmental benefits
• Safe and Fuel Efficient Driving techniques/systems
• Performance management
• Implementing a fuel efficiency programme
• Benchmarking systems and benefits

This is a half-day module (3 ½ hours training time) comprising of lectures, group discussions, exercises, DVD and case studies. You must take a second 3 ½ hour course from the list on the same day or complete it within 24 hours of starting the first one to complete a 7 hour session of Periodic Training for the Driver CPC.

This course is also accredited with the Proskills Academy.

This course can be combined with one of the following modules:
• An Introduction to Tachographs
• Drivers’ Vehicle Checks
• Understanding Drivers’ Hours Legislation
• Customer Focus
• Driver Health and Wellbeing
• Safe Loading and Unloading of Vehicles
• Dynamic Risk Assessment

Tuffnells Parcels Express Ltd, of Shepcote Lane, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, was also ordered to pay £5,134 in costs at Bedfordshire Magistrates’ Court on Friday (18 December) after it admitted breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.

The incident happened at around 7.30am on 18 March 2008, when porter Michael Tierney (53) was nearing the end of his night shift at the company’s depot in Cherrycourt Way, Leighton Buzzard.

Mr Tierney’s job involved unloading the HGVs that brought parcels to the distribution centre, sorting the parcels ready for local delivery and then loading them onto the firm’s smaller delivery lorries.

The incoming and outgoing vehicles were reverse parked in loading bays, connected to the sorting centre by manual loading ramps.

The court heard that Mr Tierney, from Leighton Buzzard, was still in the back of one of the smaller lorries when the driver unexpectedly pulled away from the loading dock. He fell from the rear of the vehicle, from a height of about four feet, and fractured his thigh bone when he landed on the ground.

Tuffnells Parcels Express Ltd has more than 600 vehicles and 25 depots in the UK.

HSE Inspector Graham Tompkins said:

“Mr Tierney suffered a serious break to his leg in this incident which should never have happened. Tuffnells was aware that someone could be inside the back of a vehicle when it drove off and had produced a risk assessment to be issued to new drivers with their employment contracts. However in this case the driver had not received a contract and had not seen the risk assessment.

“There had been several other similar incidents at the depot, including one under investigation at the time of Mr Tierney’s injury. On that occasion an Improvement Notice had been issued, ordering the company to review its arrangements for the control of the risks associated with vehicle movements.

“Reasonable practical measures the company could have put in place would have included a simple control system to prevent the driver from pulling away from the loading bay, such as a key cabinet with restricted access or giving the keys to the porter until loading was complete.”

Source: HSE

The Health and Safety Executive’s new load safety campaign is focused on reducing the number of death and injuries linked to workplace transport.

Loading and unloading accounts for one in five workplace transport incidents- many resulting from loads not being properly restrained.

Unsafe loads on vehicles injure more than 1,200 people a year and cost UK businesses millions of pounds in damaged goods.

There will be eight days of spot checks at locations across the North West, with officers from HSE and the Vehicle Operator Services Agency (VOSA) inspecting the loads of vehicles that have been pulled over at random.

Similar spot checks took place in April last year with close to 80 per cent of loads found not to be sufficiently restrained.

Drivers/businesses who are found to have unsafe loads face fines or even risk having their vehicle ordered off the road.

As part of the wider 9 week campaign, hauliers and transport managers will be mailed with guidance and top tips on loading and unloading safely and radio and trade press adverts will invite workers to visit www.hse.gov.uk/loadsafety for more information.

Peter Brown from HSE said: “There is absolutely no excuse for unsafe loads. We hear from drivers that they were only ‘going down the road’ or ‘they were running late’ but these just won’t wash, not when people’s health or lives are at risk.

“Vehicles are at risk of overturning if a load moves and makes them unstable. Load shifts can also put those workers who are unloading the van or lorry at the other end at risk.

“Materials falling from vehicles pose a danger to other road users as well as causing annoying traffic disruption. Apart from this, there is the cost to business of a lost or damaged load.

“Take those few extra minutes to secure your loads or at best you could face a fine or, at worst, risk death or injury to your self or others.

John Fitch, VOSA’s Research and Development Manager said: “VOSA and HSE recognise that insecure loads present a great risk to road safety.

We are keen to participate in HSE’s new campaign to highlight the issues of insecure loads, provide education and information for the haulage industry and reduce congestion caused by load loss.”

Kate Gibbs, Head of Communication for the Road Haulage Association said: “A considerable amount of work has been conducted into load security. Key stakeholders have been involved in assessing where the main problems are and seeing what can be done to make improvements.

“Items such as vehicle design and specification including the correct restraints for specific loads, loading dynamics, route planning, loader and driver training are just a few of the factors that need to be considered before loads are despatched.

Source: HSE

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Carillion JM Ltd following the incident at the Kingsway Business Park in Rochdale on 11 November 2008. A Ford Transit truck was reversing on the construction site when it hit Michael Gresty.

Carillion JM Ltd, of Birch Street in Wolverhampton, pleaded guilty to three health and safety offences at Manchester Crown Court on 12 February 2010. The company, which is part of the multinational Carillion plc group, was ordered to pay £9,821 towards the cost of the prosecution in addition to the fine.

Mr Gresty, from Chadderton, was helping to build a new track around a large pond at the business park when he was run over by the truck. The 56-year-old was in hospital for four weeks following the incident and is unlikely to ever return to work due to the extent of his injuries.

He lost his left kidney, broke seven ribs, left shoulder and right foot, fractured his spine, dislocated his right hip and required a pin through his right knee. He has lost one inch in height, has four needles in his spine and still suffers constant pain in his back and ribs more than a year later.

The court heard that no one was responsible for guiding the truck, which was regularly reversing up to 400 metres to drop off construction materials for the project. A pedestrian walkway to separate vehicles from pedestrians had also not been marked on the track.

Carillion pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by failing to ensure the safety of workers. It also admitted breaching Regulation 3(1)(b) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 by failing to carry out a suitable risk assessment.

HSE Inspector Neil Martin said:

“Michael Gresty is lucky to be alive following this very serious incident and he will never fully recover. His injuries could easily have been prevented if Carillion had followed basic health and safety procedures.

“It is not acceptable that a construction company, which employs 50,000 people around the world, did not carry out the right risk assessment or put a system in place for preventing collisions.

“It would have been simple to mark out a basic pedestrian walkway, using cones and tape, and have someone responsible for guiding reversing vehicles. If Carillion had done this, Michael Gresty would not have suffered agonising injuries.

“I hope this case demonstrates to all companies how important it is to separate pedestrians from vehicles on construction sites.”

Every year, ten workers are killed and 150 are seriously injured after being hit by vehicles on construction sites.

Source: HSE

Who is this course for?
This course is for LGV drivers and staff looking to improve or build upon their customer service skills.

What is it about?
The aim of this course is to inform drivers of their responsibilities with regard to their company’s corporate image and equip them to deal with both internal and external customers.

Content
• Customer choice
• The importance of customer care
• Focussing on the customer – who are our customers?
• Personal appearance and the appearance of our vehicle
• How to communicate effectively with customers
• Dealing with difficult customers the right way – Turn a complaint into a happy customer
• Managing different customer behaviour
• The power of a good attitude towards customers.

This is a half-day module (3 ½ hours training time) comprising of lectures, group discussions, exercises, DVD and case studies. You must take a second 3 ½ hour course from the list on the same day or complete it within 24 hours of starting the first one to complete a 7 hour session of Periodic Training for the Driver CPC.

This course is also accredited with the Proskills Academy.

This course can be combined with one of the following modules:
• Driver Health and Wellbeing
• Dynamic Risk Assessment
• Safe Loading and Unloading of Vehicles
• Understanding Drivers Hours Legislation
• An Introduction to Tachographs
• Eco-driving – Save Fuel, Save Money
• Drivers’ Vehicle Checks

Who is this course for?
Experienced and newly qualified drivers who want to improve their knowledge of the operations of a tachograph

What is it about?
The aim of this course is to ensure that drivers have the required knowledge of tachograph apparatus and are aware of the legal regulations regarding their use and recording of information.

Content
• An introduction to tachograph use and legal requirements
• The tachograph unit
• The smart cards
• Responsibilities of the driver and the operator
• Using the equipment
• Information recording/downloading
• Comparing tachographs available

This is a half-day module (3 ½ hours training time) comprising of lectures, group discussions, exercises, DVD and case studies. You must take a second 3 ½ hour course from the list on the same day or complete it within 24 hours of starting the first one to complete a 7 hour session of Periodic Training for the Driver CPC.

This course is also accredited with the Proskills Academy.

This course can be combined with one of the following modules:
• Drivers’ Vehicle Checks
• Eco-Driving – Save Fuel, Save Money
• Understanding Drivers’ Hours Legislation
• Customer Focus
• Driver Health and Wellbeing
• Safe Loading and Unloading of Vehicles
• Dynamic Risk Assessment

Who is this course for?
Experienced and newly qualified drivers wishing to gain a greater understanding of EC & domestic drivers hours and working time regulations.

What is it about?
The aim of this course is to provide an overview of the current EU and domestic drivers hours legislation and working time regulations and the relevance to the driver and consequences for non-compliance.

Content
• Introduction to Drivers’ Hours Legislation
• EU legislation
• UK Domestic Rules – Transport Act
• Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations 2005
• Manual entries
• Daily driving limits
• Periods of availability
• Breaks/rest periods/limits
• Exemptions
• Responsibilities and penalties
• Definition of working time
• Working limits

This is a half-day module (3 ½ hours training time) comprising of lectures, group discussions, exercises, DVD and case studies. You must take a second 3 ½ hour course from the list on the same day or complete it within 24 hours of starting the first one to complete a 7 hour session of Periodic Training for the Driver CPC.

This course is also accredited with the Proskills Academy.

This course can be combined with one of the following modules:
• An Introduction to Tachographs
• Drivers’ Vehicle Checks
• Eco-Driving – Save Fuel, Save Money
• Customer Focus
• Driver Health and Wellbeing
• Safe Loading and Unloading of Vehicles
• Dynamic Risk Assessment

Asbestos has been the main cause of occupational ill health from about 1950 onwards and is still the greatest single work-related cause of death from ill health.

Past exposure is now responsible for about 4000 people dying from asbestos related cancers every year.

Every week 20 tradesmen die from asbestos-related disease. If you carry out work on a building that was built or refurbished before the year 2000, you could have been exposed to asbestos, without even knowing it.

Since November 2006, asbestos training for maintenance and building operatives has been a legal requirement.

Who is this course for?
This course is aimed at all employees who may work in areas that could contain asbestos.

What is it about?
Current legislation places a responsibility on employers to provide adequate training to make employees aware of the risks and potential hazards. This course is designed to provide employees with a basic awareness of the dangers of asbestos and where asbestos may be found.

Content
• What is asbestos?
• Why is it dangerous?
• Where do you find asbestos?
• Regulations
• Real Life Case Studies
• Steps to Take

After the course, delegates will undertake a short written assessment to determine the knowledge, understanding and skills they have obtained from it. The Focale Certificate of Achievement will be awarded to course delegates attaining the required standard.

This course can be combined with another half day module such as Manual Handling.

A risk assessment is nothing more than a careful examination of what, in your work, could cause harm to people, so that you can consider whether you have taken enough precautions or should do more to prevent harm. Risk assessment is the methodology that underpins all decisions about health and safety.
Employers are required to conduct “suitable and sufficient” risk assessments of all work activities in order to introduce measures to eliminate, reduce or control risks.

Who is this course for?
Anyone with responsibility for or involvement in the process of conducting risk assessments and formulating control measures to minimise the risk of injury.

What is it about?
The main aim of the course is to provide course members with the knowledge and skills they require to conduct and record risk assessments, develop safe systems of work and to understand when and how to use permits to work.

Content
This is a structured course that covers what we believe to be the most important issues and it is essential that it does. However, our approach in delivering the course is flexible and pragmatic. Our trainer is an experienced health and safety consultant who is able to provide sound advice and guidance on your own specific circumstances. The course is intended to be interactive and our trainer will encourage your participation. He will welcome any contribution that you can make, based upon your own experience. There will, therefore, be plenty of opportunity to focus on the things that matter to you.

The course content will include:

• Proactive management of health and safety
• Legal requirements
• The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999
• Other relevant Regulations requiring specific risk assessment
• Definitions – hazard, risk, control measures
• Identification of hazards and persons at risk
• Five-step approach to risk assessment
• Conducting risk assessments (practical exercise)
• Hierarchy of control measures
• Recording and reviewing risk assessments
• Legal requirements for safe systems of work and permits to work
• Safe systems of work
• Compiling safe systems (practical exercise)
• Principles of permits to work
• Use of permits
• Documentation

During the course, delegates will undertake written assessments and practical exercises to determine the knowledge, understanding and skills they have obtained from it. The Focale Certificate of Achievement will be awarded to course delegates attaining the required standard.

Learning objectives

On completion of the course, delegates should be able to:

• Understand the legal requirements for risk assessment
• Understand the meaning of the terms, hazard, risk and risk control measure
• Be able to identify a range of hazards in the workplace
• Be able to carry out a risk assessment
• Be able to record a risk assessment on the appropriate documents
• Know when and how to review a risk assessment
• Understand the legal requirement for safe systems of work and permits to work
• Be able to develop, implement and maintain safe systems of work
• Understand the requirement for permits to work
• Be able to develop and implement procedures for the use of permits.

Other relevant courses available:
• Accident Investigation and Reporting
• An Introduction to Behavioural Safety
• Directors’ and Senior Management Responsibilities for Managing Safety
• Safe Use of Work Equipment (PUWER 1998)
• Supervising Health and Safety.

Who is this course for?
Working safely is for people at any level, in any sector, needing a grounding in the essentials of health and safety.

What is it about?
Working safely meets the government’s guidelines for introductory health and safety training and is a 100 per cent match to the Health and Safety Executive’s ‘passport’ syllabus.

A one-day course offering all the basics in a high impact interactive package:
• Fantastic quality animated graphics
• Designed to be fun and get people fully involved and interested
• Jargon-free technical content based on what people need to know in practice, not off-putting legal language
• Clear scenarios drawn from genuine work situations to drive home practical points
• The very latest training tips and suggestions – from grabbing and retaining attention to maximising the training experience and making sure key points are taken on board
• Assessments built into the day’s training – no need for follow-on tests on separate days, taking up valuable work time

This course is approved by the Institution of Occupational Safety & Health (IOSH), Europe’s leading body for health and safety.

Content
• Safety management
• Introducing the concept of working safely
• Defining hazard and risk
• Identifying common hazards
• Improving safety performance
• Protecting our environment

Assessments built into the day’s training – no need for follow-on tests on separate days, taking up valuable work time. Successful candidates receive an IOSH accredited certificate.

Our health and safety consultants are qualified and experienced professionals with an appropriate background in risk management. All consultants hold professional membership of the chartered Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH).

Course Dates
Company courses can be booked for any UK location by contacting our Skills Centre on 0333 8000 018.

Public Courses available at Stoke and Wakefield subject to availability.

Using the latest version of IOSH Managing Safely

Who is this course for?
Managing safely is for managers and supervisors in any sector, and any organisation. It’s designed to get managers up to speed on the practical actions they need to take to handle health and safety in their teams.

What is it about?
The course covers safety and risk management in the workplace using:
• High quality animated graphics
• Sophisticated, fun presentation
• Content based on what delegates need to know in practice
• Clear scenarios managers can relate to
• A range of training tools, including a board game, DVDs and quizzes

This course is approved by the Institution of Occupational Safety & Health (IOSH), Europe’s leading body for health and safety.

Content
• Safety management
• Assessing risks
• Controlling risks
• Understanding your responsibilities
• Identifying hazards
• Investigating accidents and incidents
• Measuring performance
• Health and Safety legislation
• Protecting our environment

Assessment is based on project work and a final assessment. Successful candidates receive an IOSH accredited certificate.

Our health and safety consultants are qualified and experienced professionals with an appropriate background in risk management. All consultants hold professional membership of the chartered Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH).Our principal health and safety trainer is a Chartered Member of the IOSH with over 30 years experience in health and safety management working with directors, managers, supervisors and the workforce.

Added Value
In order to ensure that our training is effective and adds value we can add additional content into this course to make it bespoke for your company using your company logo and case studies, statistics where requested – call for details of how you can tailor this course for your company.

Example: Added value for the extractives industry – we have experienced trainers with over 30 years experience in the extractive industry who can deliver the latest version of IOSH Managing Safely and ensure that it is relevant for those being trained through the use of additional content and trainer experience. Call for details.

Course Dates
We run regular IOSH Managing Safely ‘Public Training Courses’ for individuals at our training centre in Stoke-on-Trent and Wakefield, near Leeds.

Company courses can be booked for any UK location by contacting our Skills Centre on 0333 8000 018.

Employers have a moral, financial and legal responsibility to report and investigate workplace accidents. The result of accidents can range from no injury to fatalities and it is important to learn from near miss events as they often have the potential to be a future fatality.

The accident reporting and investigation process is an essential element of the effective management of health and safety. It also makes business sense as costs can be identified and control measures implemented to prevent further losses.

The course is designed to consider the moral, financial and legal implications of accidents and discusses how employers can effectively use the information to protect the assets of the business.

Who is this course for?
The course emphasises the importance of learning from health and safety failures and is intended for anyone with a responsibility to investigate and report on workplace accidents.

What is it about?
The aim of the course is to provide course members with the necessary knowledge and skills to carry out investigations into accidents/incidents, accurately report their findings and make recommendations to prevent a recurrence.

Content
This is a structured course that covers what we believe to be the most important issues and it is essential that it does. However, our approach in delivering the course is flexible and pragmatic. Our trainer is an experienced health and safety consultant who is able to provide sound advice and guidance on your own specific circumstances. The course is intended to be interactive and our trainer will encourage your participation. He will welcome any contribution that you can make, based upon your own experience. There will, therefore, be plenty of opportunity to focus on the things that matter to you.

The course content will include:

• Accidents and incidents – definitions, outcomes, cost of failure
• Legislation – Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR)
• Civil liability
• Accident causation – immediate, underlying and root causes
• Human factors
• Accident investigation – purpose, techniques, evidence gathering and report writing
• Practical exercise using a video based accident scenario
• Principles and benefits of accident prevention
• Action plans.

During the course, delegates will undertake written assessments and practical exercises to determine the knowledge, understanding and skills they have obtained from it. The Focale Certificate of Achievement will be awarded to course delegates attaining the required standard.

Learning objectives
On completion of the course, delegates should be able to:
• Understand the terms accident, incident and near miss
• Understand the reasons for reporting and investigating accidents
• Understand the main legal requirements, especially RIDDOR
• Recognise the importance of effective accident investigation
• Be able to gather the facts surrounding an accident
• Be able to identify and analyse accident causations
• Be able to recommend preventative measures
• Be able to prepare an accident investigation report.

Other relevant courses available
• An Introduction to Behavioural Safety
• Directors’ and Senior Management Responsibilities for Managing Safety
• Risk Assessment, Safe Systems of Work and Permits to Work
• Safe Use of Work Equipment (PUWER 1998)
• Supervising Health and Safety.

It is generally accepted that up to 90% of all accidents are caused by the unsafe actions of people and Behavioural Safety is an approach to workplace safety that focuses on workers’ behaviour as the cause of most work-related injuries and illnesses.

It is vitally important that all employees recognise their personal responsibilities and are proactively encouraged by reinforcing and praising safe behaviour as well as identifying unsafe behaviour.

The introduction of behaviour-based safety programmes into the culture of an organisation is critical to help deliver sustainable benefits to personal health & safety and to see a reduction in injuries and ill health sustained in the workplace.

Who is this course for?
Directors, managers and supervisors interested in learning about behavioural based safety in order to improve the safety culture.

What is it about?
The main aim of the course is to provide course delegates with the practical and theoretical skills to assess the viability of introducing a behavioural safety programme in their workplace.

Content
This is a structured course that covers what we believe to be the most important issues and it is essential that it does. However, our approach in delivering the course is flexible and pragmatic. Our trainer is an experienced health and safety consultant who is able to provide sound advice and guidance on your own specific circumstances. The course is intended to be interactive and our trainer will encourage your participation. He will welcome any contribution that you can make, based upon your own experience. There will, therefore, be plenty of opportunity to focus on the things that matter to you.

The course content will include:

• Introduction to behavioural safety
• Stages of safety management; technical, procedural, behavioural
• Domino theory
• Why people don’t follow rules, intentional and unintentional
• Perception of risk
• The Six Pillars of Behavioural Safety
• Antecedents, behaviour and consequence model
• Observing a task, determining critical behaviours
• Reinforcing safe behaviour as well as eliminating unsafe behaviours
• Implementing a behavioural safety programme.

During the course, delegates will undertake written assessments and practical exercises to determine the knowledge, understanding and skills they have obtained from it. The Focale Certificate of Achievement will be awarded to course delegates attaining the required standard.

Learning objectives
On completion of the course, delegates should be able to:
• Understand the psychology of behaviour and the foundations of behavioural based safety
• Explain the human and organisational influences on employee behaviour
• Analyse work tasks to determine critical behaviours
• Understand the importance of effective leadership
• Learn from accidents/incidents and implement strategical change
• Develop a tailored behavioural strategy
• Develop strategies to move organisational cultures to challenge unsafe acts
• Understand how to address challenges and apply positive reinforcement techniques for safe behaviour
• Determine whether or not a behavioural safety programme is appropriate for their business.

Other relevant courses available:
• Accident Investigation and Reporting
• Directors’ and Senior Management Responsibilities for Managing Safety
• Risk Assessment, Safe Systems of Work and Permits to Work
• Safe Use of Work Equipment (PUWER 1998)
• Supervising Health and Safety.

All work equipment has the potential to cause injuries in the workplace. If we fail to manage the risks associated with the use of work equipment, we could be putting the person using that piece of equipment and others at risk.

Everyone uses work equipment to a greater or lesser degree as part of his or her work. Employers must make sure that they manage the risks associated with the use of work equipment.

By selecting suitable equipment, maintaining it properly, and training people to use the equipment correctly, risks to employees and others can be minimised.

Who is this course for?
Anyone who has responsibility for workplace equipment, especially managers, supervisors, etc who will be involved with the implementation of safe systems of work for work equipment.

What is it about?
The main aim of the course is to provide those who have control of, or supervise the use of work equipment and systems covered by Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) 1998, with the requisite knowledge and skills to be able to satisfactorily discharge their responsibilities.

Content
This is a structured course that covers what we believe to be the most important issues and it is essential that it does. However, our approach in delivering the course is flexible and pragmatic. Our trainer is an experienced health and safety consultant who is able to provide sound advice and guidance on your own specific circumstances. The course is intended to be interactive and our trainer will encourage your participation. He will welcome any contribution that you can make, based upon your own experience. There will, therefore, be plenty of opportunity to focus on the things that matter to you.

The course content will include:

• Legal duties and requirements
• Suitability of work equipment
• Maintenance
• Statutory inspections
• Training, information & instruction
• Conformity with European Union requirements
• Equipment controls
• Isolation from sources of energy
• Stability, lighting, markings & warnings
• Mobile work equipment.

During the course, delegates will undertake written assessments and practical exercises to determine the knowledge, understanding and skills they have obtained from it. The Focale Certificate of Achievement will be awarded to course delegates attaining the required standard.

Learning objectives
On completion of the course, delegates should be able to:
• Understand the requirements of PUWER 1998
• Appreciate the importance of the correct selection of suitable work equipment
• Understand the hazards associated with the use of work equipment
• Be able to establish a system for the maintenance and inspection of work equipment
• Understand the importance of the provision of training, information and instruction
• Introduce machinery controls and control systems in order to minimise the risk of injury during the use of work equipment
• Understand the importance of the correct selection and control of mobile equipment.

Other relevant courses available
• Accident Investigation and Reporting
• An Introduction to Behavioural Safety
• Directors’ and Senior Management Responsibilities for Managing Safety
• Risk Assessment, Safe Systems of Work and Permits to Work
• Supervising Health and Safety.

The supervisory role (supervisors, foremen and charge hands) is vitally important to any business. In addition to production responsibilities supervisors have a moral and legal duty to look after the health and safety of employees, but must have the knowledge and skill to be able to achieve this.

The supervisor provides the link between the shop floor and management and is therefore in the prime position to train, influence and monitor the behaviour of employees. Additionally they can provide management with vital information necessary in order to achieve a safer workplace.

Who is this course for?
Those in a supervisory role who are seeking to improve their knowledge and skills in the management of health and safety.

What is it about?
The aim of the course is to provide course members with the knowledge and skills to supervise safety in the workplace, to enable them to make an effective contribution to building a positive safety culture and improve and maintain workplace safety to the highest possible standard.

Content
This is a structured course that covers what we believe to be the most important issues and it is essential that it does. However, our approach in delivering the course is flexible and pragmatic. Our trainer is an experienced health and safety consultant who is able to provide sound advice and guidance on your own specific circumstances. The course is intended to be interactive and our trainer will encourage your participation. He will welcome any contribution that you can make, based upon your own experience. There will, therefore, be plenty of opportunity to focus on the things that matter to you.

The course content will include:

• Health and safety law for supervisors
• Accident causation and prevention
• Health and safety management
• Workplace hazards
• Risk assessment
• Safe systems and permits to work
• Occupational health
• Introduction to behavioural safety.

During the course, delegates will undertake written assessments and practical exercises to determine the knowledge, understanding and skills they have obtained from it. The Focale Certificate of Achievement will be awarded to course delegates attaining the required standard.

Learning objectives
On completion of the course, delegates should be able to:

• Understand the role of the supervisor in managing health and safety
• Have a working knowledge of the relevant legislation
• Understand how accidents are caused and how they can be prevented
• Know the main requirements and purpose of risk assessment and be able to carry out a simple risk assessment and identify risk control measures
• Understand the meaning and application of the term safe system of work and the requirements of a permit to work
• Understand the requirements for, and types of, workplace inspections
• Understand the requirements for the correct selection, control and maintenance of machinery
• Have an improved ability to recognise and categorise hazards in the workplace
• Be able to identify and correct unsafe behaviours
• Be able to communicate effectively with others on safety issues.

Other relevant courses available
• Accident Investigation and Reporting
• An Introduction to Behavioural Safety
• Directors’ and Senior Management Responsibilities for Managing Safety
• Risk Assessment, Safe Systems of Work and Permits to Work
• Safe Use of Work Equipment (PUWER 1998).

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Centrewest London Buses Ltd – part of the First Group based at Macmillan House, Paddington Station in Westminster – for safety failings leading up to the incident on 18 May 2004.

The company pleaded guilty of breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 on 16 December, at Southwark Crown Court. Today Centrewest London Buses Ltd was fined £400,000. Costs are yet to be determined at a separate hearing.

The court heard that Robert Cherry, 59, from Ruislip, was preparing one of the buses at the station in Uxbridge Bus Garage in Bakers Court. As he stepped in between two parked buses, the front bus lurched backwards, crushing him against the rear, stationary vehicle. He died at the scene.

The HSE investigation showed that traffic management at the garage was poor, particularly when buses left the garage at the start of the working day. The garage had originally been designed to hold 65 buses, but at the time of Mr Cherry’s death it was the base for 119 vehicles. The garage was not well lit and drivers carrying out checks were forced to walk between closely parked buses that were manoeuvring to leave the garage.

The bus that struck Mr Cherry also had a defective gear selector that may have meant it was in a different gear to that indicated in the driver’s cab. Checks carried out on similar buses after Mr Cherry’s death revealed that four others based at Uxbridge had similar problems. A check at the company’s other garages in London showed that 10 out of 60 buses were significantly faulty and a further 30 per cent suffered from more minor faults.

HSE inspector, Bill Hazleton said:

“Robert Cherry died because his employer did not do enough to ensure his safety or that of his colleagues. He was a much loved family member who was killed while going about his daily work.

“Like so many workplace accidents, this one was entirely preventable and should never have happened.

“The company’s traffic management system was poor and its processes for maintaining vehicles and for identifying and repairing defects were inadequate.”

Source HSE – 18 December 2009

Who is this course for?
Experienced and newly qualified drivers who want to gain a greater understanding of how to conduct daily walk-round checks to ensure vehicles are fully operational, legal and safe to operate.

What is it about?
The aim of this course is to ensure drivers are aware of best practice and legal responsibilities with regard to daily vehicle checks and reporting of defects.

Content
• Why perform vehicle checks?
• The vehicle check walk-around step by step guide
• Best practice
• Maintaining the security of the load and the driver
• Defect reporting

This is a half-day module (3 ½ hours training time) comprising of lectures, group discussions, exercises, DVD and case studies. You must take a second 3 ½ hour course from the list on the same day or complete it within 24 hours of starting the first one to complete a 7 hour session of Periodic Training for the Driver CPC.

This course is also accredited with the Proskills Academy.

This course can be combined with one of the following modules:
• An Introduction to Tachographs
• Eco-Driving – Save Fuel, Save Money
• Understanding Drivers’ Hours Legislation
• Customer Focus
• Driver Health and Wellbeing
• Safe Loading and Unloading of Vehicles
• Dynamic Risk Assessment

Who is this course for?
Experienced and newly qualified drivers who want to improve their knowledge and skills of risk assessment and hazard spotting.

What is it about?
The aim of this course is to provide delegates with the skills and understanding to manage risk dynamically as part of everyday routine operations. Delegates are introduced to the human factors that affect our ability to perceive and manage risk and change in a thoughtful and planned manner.

Content
• The law relating to risk assessment in the workplace
• What is a dynamic risk assessment?
• Identify hazards and assess dynamic risks when exposed to them
• Record dynamic risk information when appropriate
• The importance of risk assessments
• Group exercise in risk assessment.

This is a half-day module (3 ½ hours training time) comprising of lectures, group discussions, exercises, DVD and case studies. You must take a second 3 ½ hour course from the list on the same day or complete it within 24 hours of starting the first one to complete a 7 hour session of Periodic Training for the Driver CPC.

This course is also accredited with the Proskills Academy.

This course can be combined with one of the following modules:
• Customer Focus
• Driver Health and Wellbeing
• Safe Loading and Unloading of Vehicles
• Understanding Drivers Hours Legislation
• An Introduction to Tachographs
• Eco-driving – Save Fuel, Save Money
• Drivers’ Vehicle Checks

Who is this course for?
Experienced and newly qualified drivers who want to increase their awareness of safety and gain a greater understanding of their duties and responsibilities under current legislation.

What is it about?
The aim of this course is to ensure drivers are aware of their responsibilities and of best practice with regard to loading/unloading and securing of goods and materials.

Content
• The law
• Restraining the load
• Types of vehicles and loads
• Restraint systems
• Vehicle plates and axle weights
• Roadside checks
• Vehicle weights & measurements
• Deliveries.

This is a half-day module (3 ½ hours training time) comprising of lectures, group discussions, exercises, DVD and case studies. You must take a second 3 ½ hour course from the list on the same day or complete it within 24 hours of starting the first one to complete a 7 hour session of Periodic Training for the Driver CPC.

This course is also accredited with the Proskills Academy.

This course can be combined with one of the following modules:
• Customer Focus
• Driver Health and Wellbeing
• Dynamic Risk Assessment
• Understanding Drivers Hours Legislation
• An Introduction to Tachographs
• Eco-driving – Save Fuel, Save Money
• Drivers’ Vehicle Checks

The call comes after the prosecution today (29 July) of John Stacey and Sons Ltd at Winchester Crown Court. The prosecution follows an incident at the company’s Tadley site on 1 June 2007. An employee, Frederick Aubrey, was run over and died five days later from his injuries.

John Stacey and Sons Ltd pleaded guilty to section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and regulation 3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 at an earlier hearing at Basingstoke Magistrates Court on 29 June. Today the company was fined £60,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £29,061. It also has to pay a victim surcharge of £15.

On 1 June 2007, Frederick Aubrey was working at a waste transfer station in Silchester Road, Tadley, owned by John Stacey and Sons Ltd. Mr Aubrey, along with two other employees, was hand-sorting waste, a process known as ‘totting’. A fourth worker was helping the three men with the totting when the driver of a skip loader came on site. He asked the fourth worker to get into a shovel loader and tip over one of the skips. The worker did so and in the process reversed over Mr Aubrey, who died five days later in hospital.

David Bibby, HSE Inspector, said:

“This case highlights the importance of assessing risks and putting adequate controls in place to protect pedestrians from vehicles, and the tragic consequences when this is not properly done. The practice of totting had only been going on at the company for about two weeks prior to the incident and they had not recognised that by doing this people were being unnecessarily exposed to the risk of vehicles moving around them with nothing to protect them.

“This should serve as a message to all companies, and especially those in the waste industry where unfortunately accidents like this are all too common, to ensure that risks from workplace transport are identified and suitable measures put in place to prevent accidents.”

Source HSE

Officials from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Vehicle Operator Services Agency (VOSA) stopped 40 vehicles during three days of checks in Wrexham, Birmingham and Humberside.

Although the majority needed remedial action to make the load safe for onward travel and unloading, in most cases drivers were able to solve the problem safely within minutes. Further checks are now planned.

During the last three years, 14 people have been killed and more than 2,000 people have been injured by cargo falling from vehicles when they are being loaded or unloaded.

Marcia Davies, Head of Injury Reduction at HSE, said:

“Although this was a relatively small number of checks the proportion of vehicles with a problem is alarming. The fatal and serious injuries suffered during loading and unloading are needless tragedies and lives are often shattered as a result. Taking simple safety measures can avoid this misery.

“Vehicles which are loaded safely for the road can usually be safely unloaded at the workplace – and vice versa. A significant number of manual handling injuries, falls from heights and accidents caused by falling objects result from poorly restrained loads shifting in transit. HSE will be launching a campaign offering guidance and advice on loading and unloading later this year.”

John Fitch, VOSA’s Research and Development Manager said:

“VOSA and HSE recognise that insecure loads present a great risk to road safety. We are keen to participate in HSE’s new campaign to highlight the issues of insecure loads, provide education and information for the haulage industry and reduce congestion caused by load loss.”

Badly secured loads pose a number of risks, including:

Shedding loads in transit, endangering other road users and causing traffic disruption.
Vehicles overturning when they become unstable following a load shifting in transit.
Loads moving inside the vehicle during transit which then fall off at the point of delivery, with potential to cause injury.
Workers climbing onto trailers to deal with a load that has shifted in transit then falling because they have a precarious foot hold, or being struck by parts of the load or suffering manual handling injuries when they try to unload the vehicle.
Damage to goods being carried
Kate Gibbs, from the Road Haulage Association, said:

“A considerable amount of work has been conducted on the important issue of load restraint. Key stakeholders have been involved in assessing where the main problems are and looking at how we bring about the necessary improvement required.

“Items such as vehicle design and specification, including the correct restraints for specific loads, loading dynamics, route planning, loader and driver training are just a few of the factors requiring consideration prior to despatching loads.”

Jo Tanner, of the Freight Transport Association (FTA), said:

“Overloaded or badly loaded lorries can present a real health risk if they are not managed properly, both during unloading and while in transit. It is of major concern that people are still being killed by something that can be prevented so easily and we fully support the work of HSE and VOSA to help reduce future tragedies occurring.”

Source HSE