A Leeds printing company habitually allowed its employees to be lifted to heights of almost six metres in an unsecured plastic box balanced on the forks of a forklift truck, a court heard.
Leeds magistrates heard on 30 November that no fall protection was provided for the workers during the lifting, which took place regularly during routine stock-taking at the firm’s factory in Wortley. The risk of falling was magnified because there was no way to secure the box to the truck forks and no fixing points in the box to which a safety harness could be attached.
The HSE decided to prosecute the firm after HSE inspector Paul Newton was called out to investigate an incident that occurred on the firm’s premises on 14 October 2011. One of First Class Post’s employees had fallen from a plastic box on the forks of a forklift truck while carrying out work for another company. He was not injured, despite his fall
During the inspector’s investigation of the company’s stock-taking practices, it came to light that First Class Post was undertaking its quarterly stock inspections in a “reckless” manner, regularly putting employees at risk of falling.
Inspector Newton told SHP that after he intervened, the company changed its procedures. Instead of working at height, stock-taking is now conducted from the ground, removing pallets from the racking. If needed, the firm uses airport-style steps – mobile steps with handrails and a small working platform at the top.
First Class Post said in mitigation it had a good health and safety record and there had been no accident, adding that it was a “technical” breach. The activity was conducted only four times a year and it has now changed its stock-taking practices.
The company pleaded guilty to breaching reg.4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 by failing to properly plan, supervise, and carry out work in a safe manner. It was fined £2500 and ordered to pay £1041 in full costs.
The inspector added: “It was luck rather than good management that there had not been a serious injury at First Class Post as a result of this reckless working practice. I hope this prosecution will prevent one happening in future.
“Putting employees at risk in this way is simply not acceptable. If the company had complied with the law requiring work at height to be properly planned and carried out safely under supervision, it would not have had to face this charge.”
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!
it was a “technical” breach.
To right it was, state the bloody obvious why don`t you.
Wrong technique adopted all together.
Amazing attitude yet again adopted by the duty holder, and they only imposed this risk 4 times a year? Should be grateful then I suppose?
Acts or ommisions apply by the FLT operator, but as in previous cases, the FLT operator has been found to be not at fault.
I wonder if this would apply had thier been a fatality?
I know of excavator op`s who have been nicked for failing to use a machine according to instruction/ training and or best practice. Also, I know of telehandler op`s who have also been nicked for dangerous operations.
FLT ops seem to be getting away with bad practice.
They no doubt were under duress?
Will someone tell me what a “Technical Breach” is please? Maybe I can use it when speeding on an empty motorway, parking on double lines on a Sunday, fiddling my taxes etc.
A breach is a breach…nothing else. If I were a judge I’d double the fine for such an excuse!!
A £2500 fine is hardly an incentive to other employers to comply with the law.
Another example of Magistrates not recognising the seriousness of a breach which repeatedly exposed workers to the risk of death/serious injury. I wonder what the fine would have been had there been blood on the floor instead of just a “technical breach”?
The law requires us to manage RISK but the courts only seem to view a failure to meet this duty as worthy of a large fine if the risk has actually resulted in injury
Another interesting Wk.@Ht prosecution.
And still they keep coming!
Again, what was an employee doing consenting to engage in an unsafe practice?
Interesting, because prosecution targets the controlling mind and not the factor of the offence-
any comments, please, on the need for training, and the responsibility of the individual?