Written HSMS not properly communicated or implemented
Cammell Laird Shiprepairers and Shipbuilders Ltd has been fined £400,000 after a workman suffered serious injuries whilst carrying out repair work on the 20 July 2015.
The 59 year old worker from Ellesmere Port suffered fractures and crush injuries to his right hand and was off work for 5 months.
Liverpool Magistrates Court heard (5 December 2016) that the workman was repairing a lathe at the time of the incident. He noticed that the shafts and couplings were dirty and cleaned the parts by wrapping an emery cloth around the lead screw with the lathe under power. The rotating machine pulled hiin to the moving parts.
Failed to recognise way employees were working
HSE argued that the company risk assessment failed to identify the risks involved in the common practice of using emery cloth on moving parts. It also failed to recognise the way in which its employees were working, with most machinists carrying out their own maintenance work rather than referring such tasks to the maintenance section.
A system of lock off, which would have prevented reconnection of the power to the machine, had been identified and was outlined in the written health and safety management system but had not been properly communicated to employees or implemented.
No lock off + poor control and management
Cammell Laird Shiprepairers and Shipbuilders Ltd of Cammell Laird Shipyard, Campbeltown Road, Birkenhead pleaded guilty to a breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined £400,000 And ordered to pay costs of £7,683.
Speaking after the hearing HSE Inspector Karen Fearon said:
“The Defendant had developed a Health and Safety Management System (HSMS) but failed to ensure that the system had permeated all parts of the organisation. If the HSMS had been followed this accident may not have occurred.
Maintenance was being carried out on machinery which was energised whilst someone was in the dangerous part of that machine. There was no lock off, poor control and poor management. Prior to maintenance the equipment was not shutdown, isolated and residual energy released and secured with a means to prevent inadvertent reconnection (e.g. by locking off with a padlock) as it should have been.”