Company ignored workers’ concerns over glove policy - incourt-content | SHP - Safety and Health Practitioner

Company ignored workers’ concerns over glove policy

06 July 2011

A global chemical firm has admitted that it failed to identify that its glove-wearing policy created entanglement risks for workers at its factory in Runcorn.

Ineos Enterprises Ltd introduced a policy at its site in Weston Point Salt Walks, which required workers to wear gloves when using machinery. On 21 September 2010, a 58-year-old worker was operating a metalworking lathe to remove rust off a hitch pin, which is used to connect a trailer to a vehicle.

He was holding a metal file while the rotated the pin, when his glove snagged on it and his hand was pulled round the rotating mechanism. He suffered damage to three fingers, one of which needed to be amputated.

The HSE learned that several employees at the factory had been reprimanded for not wearing gloves, including the injured worker who was reminded by his manager on the morning of the incident that he needed to wear them.

HSE inspector Mhairi Duffy revealed that during her investigation she found that the metalworking lathe and two drill machines did not have safety guards. She said: “A worker has lost one finger and badly damaged two others because Ineos didn’t think about the possible implications of its new glove policy.

“The company ordered its staff to wear protective gloves on the factory floor, even though some workers tried to explain that there were often specific reasons for not wearing them.

“New guidance was introduced nearly six years ago on not wearing gloves while using metalworking machines, but Ineos failed to keep up to date with the latest health and safety advice.”

Ineos Enterprises appeared at Runcorn Magistrates’ Court on 4 July and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined £12,000 and ordered to pay £6607 towards costs.

The firm told the court that it has subsequently amended its glove policy to ensure that employees don’t wear gloves while using machines where they could get entangled. It has also removed the metalworking lathes from the site and has introduced fixed guarding on the drill machines.

An Ineos Enterprises spokesperson said: “Ineos conducted its own immediate investigation at the time of the incident and co-operated fully with the HSE's own subsequent investigation.  
“The company accepted that in this instance it failed to ensure a safe system of work for employees using certain pieces of machinery at the site

“Ineos has since taken all necessary steps to prevent a repeat of the incident including improved risk assessments, improvements to the workshop machinery, and a comprehensive staff training programme.”


     
Tell A Colleague RSS feeds Print content Share

Add Comment

Burysafetybloke
A classic example of a site-wide PPE policy being wrong, imposed for supposedly good reasons but a failure to understand that one-sixe rarely fits all and not listening to employee feedback.
A warning to all arrogant safety departments to get out and look at what is really going on.

Posted on 12/07/11 14:51.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
steve grimes
obviously a case of so called experts who sit behind desks making rules for guys who actually do the job. no wonder the safety industry is at times seen as a joke. Anyone who understands machinery of this kind knows that you dont wear gloves, have loose clothing or loose hair. I have notiuced a sad trend in safety over recent years of people in our industry best summed up as "They know the law but they dont know safety". There is a profound difference between the two.

Posted on 13/07/11 10:14.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Massimo verdi
Spot on again Steve

They must be Chartered Members of the Posterior Coverers and Box-Tickers Society (CMPCTBS)!

Posted on 14/07/11 14:22 in reply to steve grimes.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Kellee
The machine looks a bit suss too!! But why is that safety professions (as you say sit at their desk all day) do not actually see what is going on down on site? I am actively involved the risk assessments, the employees need to understand risks, but as a s safety professional I need to understand and see the job at hand. Not just enforce policy without justification.

Posted on 19/07/11 16:00.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Ray
More to the point, what did the RA say about the hazards and appropriate PPE when working the machinery? Where was the employee input via a health and safety committee? I could say a lot more...

Sadly many of the and mandatory policies are dictated by those in the ivory tower, without any proper thought for those on the ground implementing the policies or the residual risks.

Posted on 21/07/11 10:33.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Michael Morrisroe
I am a SHEQ Manager, who is a time served fabrication engineer. I am deeply saddened by some of the comments made in regard to the article. Like most H&S pro's I am a one man band and do find it difficult to cover everything and do make mistakes. I rely on feedback from RA's as when involving operators they rarely say anything.
It would seem it is the managments fault for not feeding concerns back to the right department. just another point of bashing the H&S guy without knowing the details.

Posted on 26/07/11 13:18.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Showing 6 results.

Advanced Search

 

 
 
 
 
 

United Business Media