A factory worker’s forearm was broken in two places when it became entangled in a mesh conveyor belt at the North Yorkshire premises of one of Europe’s largest ice-cream manufacturers.
Production operative Sam Goodall, 20, of Northallerton, had been working on an ice cream production line at R&R Ice Cream in Leeming Bar on 8 August 2011, when his arm was drawn into an in-feed conveyor belt.
Kate Dixon, the HSE Inspector who investigated and prosecuted the case, explained to SHP that, at the time of the incident, two mesh conveyors had been feeding into a spiral freezer, a large unit that flash-freezes the ice cream at -35OC.
A number of air blades used to chill the ice cream before it went into the spiral freezer, on the side of the lower mesh conveyor belt, had been removed by the company some time prior to the incident, leaving a circular aperture and exposed in-running nips.
Mr Goodall put his hand through the gap to try to retrieve some ice-cream lids that had become entrapped. The glove he was wearing got caught on the mesh, pulling his hand up and drawing his arm into the unguarded dangerous moving part of the machine, fracturing his right forearm and dislocating his wrist. He managed to pull himself free, but his injuries were such that he was off work for six weeks.
R & R Ice Cream, which makes brands such as Fruit Pastilles lollies, Thorntons and Smarties ice cream, as well as supermarket own-labels, was fined a total of £10,000 and told to pay full costs of £3294.
The firm pleaded guilty at Northallerton magistrates on 24 September to breaching reg.11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) 1998, by failing to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery and reg.3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (MHSWR) 1999, by not making a suitable and sufficient risk assessment. It was fined £10,000 on the PUWER charge with no separate penalty for the MHSWR charge.
R & R said in mitigation that the machine had only been unguarded for a short period of time. The incident had not been a deliberate, reckless breach and there had been no financial gain for the company. Although it said it had a good safety record, the inspector told SHP that four Improvement Notices related to machine guarding had been served at another of the company’s premises.
Inspector Dixon concluded: “R&R Ice Cream failed to make sure that the dangerous moving parts of the in-feed conveyor were not accessible by the workforce on the production line. This failure could have been addressed at minimal cost.
“It also failed to re-assess the risk to workers after the change it made to the production line. Even temporary changes to machinery should be fully considered to make sure additional risks are identified and addressed.”
The Safety Conversation with SHP (previously the Safety and Health Podcast) aims to bring you the latest news, insights and legislation updates in the form of interviews, discussions and panel debates from leading figures within the profession.
Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Google Podcasts, subscribe and join the conversation today!
I’n pretty sure I am not the only reader who is quite amazed that tabloid type headlines are used to describe some of the court cases involving life changing injuries. The ‘Lolly’ reference above is not professional and if the case in question involved a member of my family I would be very upset with the author. Please have some respect!
Surely you chaps at SHP could have come up with a better headline than this “Ice-cream firm coughs up lolly after conveyor injuries”. Cringewworthy