A plastic-moulding company in Northern Ireland has admitted safety failings following an incident in which a young worker’s arm was severed inside an unguarded machine.
Justin Guiney, 20, was working as a maintenance engineer at Clarehill Plastics Ltd’s factory in Moira, Co. Armagh when the incident took place on 6 January last year.
He was carrying out unplanned maintenance on a rotational moulding machine when his clothing got caught between two unguarded gear wheels and his arm was pulled into the machine, which cut off his limb from the shoulder down.
The HSENI investigated the incident and found that the firm was in possession of guards for the machine but these had been removed months earlier and never refitted. There were also no suitable measures in place to isolate the machine when maintenance was being carried out.
Clarehill Plastics Ltd appeared at Craigavon Crown Court on 28 September and pleaded guilty to breaching Article 4 of the Health and Safety at Work Order (NI) and reg.11 of PUWER (NI) 1999. It was fined a total of £8000 and ordered to pay £1500 in costs.
After the hearing, HSENI inspector Jonathan Know said: “The results of this avoidable incident will be experienced by this young man for the rest of his life.
“It’s essential that companies take suitable measures to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery. In addition to this, machinery should be switched off and secured, so that it remains off until work is complete and employees are away from any danger.
“All types of maintenance work must be properly planned and supervised, so that workers are not injured or killed.”
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!
This was a criminal court, fines are not imposed by civil courts.
This was a maintenance procedure, and it’s quite possible that the guards had been removed by the same maintenance man who was injured.
The machine wasn’t isolated, you would expect a maintenance engineer to isolate the machine he’s working on.(personal responsibility?)
Yes there is a lack of control evident, and better maintenance procedures are required, but the size of the fine will not make the company behave differently.
When are we likely to see a fine that reflects the serverity of failure?
On numerous occasions within recent months similar failure is shown, gurading is a known requirement, yet persistant ignorence is adopted by engineering companies with little persuasive penalty.
No wonder their is continued avoidance of control.
No doubt this is another scenario of limited intervention. Lets leave it to self regulatory compliance, as there is no need to burden industry with inspections is there?
“The results of this avoidable incident will be experienced by this young man for the rest of his life.
Do you believe that the Civil Court is the appropriate court in which to rectify this failure?
The removal of guarding was a deliberate act, not an oversite.
They failed to control the risk, they failed to monitor the work place for adequate control, and as a consequence the IP is for ever scarred.
I fail to see your aguement of proportionality? 8K is peanuts.
I stand corrected Andy,
The IP may have failed to isolate the machine himself, which reduced the burden upon the Employer, leading to a reduction in the fine perhaps?
Although the comment above says there was no suitable measure to isolate the machine, and not, that it was not adopted by the IP?
Bob, I think you’ll find the key word is “proportionate.”
If you slap a massive fine on a small local business what happens?
They go out of business, and loads more people loose their jobs. Who wins then?
Try looking at the bigger picture occasionally.
What they should be doing is putting the MD in the dock, and fining him as well.