A Liverpool-based rubber manufacturer has appeared in court for safety failings after a worker’s hand became trapped inside an unguarded machine.
Robert Devonport was operating a rubber-forming machine at Ley Rubber Ltd’s former factory at Bridgewater Street in Liverpool, when the incident took place, on 6 December 2010.
He was using the machine to connect two pieces of rubber to create a rubber seal for car windscreens. The machine was operating at temperatures of approximately 200oC and Mr Devonport was attempting to realign a metal clamp inside the machine, while it was running on a timed cycle.
He was adjusting a bolt when the clamp moved upwards at the end of the cycle and pinned his hand against the machine’s control panel. He suffered severe burns to his left hand and a crush injury to his thumb. He was unable to return to work for nine months owing to his injuries.
The HSE wasn’t notified about the incident until six months later.
In August last year, the HSE began its investigation and found that no risk assessment or safe operating procedures had been created for using the machine. Workers had not received training to use the machine, and there was no guarding to prevent access to the entrapment area. An Improvement Notice was issued to the company, which required it to carry out a risk assessment on the machine.
Ley Rubber Ltd appeared at South Sefton Magistrates’ Court on 6 September and pleaded guilty to breaching reg.3(1)(a) of the MHSWR 1999. It was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay £3518 in prosecution costs.
In mitigation, the company said it installed guards on the machine within two days of the HSE’s initial visit. It cooperated with the investigation and has no previous convictions.
After the hearing, HSE inspector Phil Redman said: “Robert Devonport still has difficulty using his left hand nearly two years on from the incident.
“If Ley Rubber had carried out a proper assessment of the risks its employees faced then it would have been able to indentify the need for guards to be installed on the machine.
“The firm was able to fit suitable guards just two days after we visited the site, but if they had been in place at the time of the incident then it could have been avoided altogether.”
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!
Does this mean I can throw out RIDDOR now?
So was the machine CE marked? What did the Technical File and EHSR say? Had somebody tampered with guards?
Presumably the employer can demonstrate PUWER Reg 6 compliance? There is an absolute requirement here,so before HMG changes “Shall” to “so far as is reasonable” mabe the lawyers ought to get in a civil claim.