Construction giant Carillion Construction and a sub-contractor have appeared in court for safety failings after a worker suffered fatal injuries when he fell 19 metres at a building site in South Wales.
Carillion Construction was the principal contractor for the building of an apartment development at Meridian Quay in Swansea. It sub-contracted Febrey Ltd to construct concrete structures at the site.
Russell Samuel was contracted by Febrey to work as a scaffolder on the project. On 22 January 2008, he was dismantling a scaffold ladder-access platform prior to the installation of a roof and staircase on the fourth floor of the apartment building.
There were no witnesses to the incident, but it is believed Mr Samuel stepped on a ladder opening on the platform, which was inadequately covered by a fragile board. He fell 19 metres to the ground below, narrowly missing carpenter Richard Haines, who was working directly below. He died in hospital two days later owing to his injuries.
The HSE investigated the incident and learned Febrey had allowed an unsafe working culture to exist on the site. It had inadequate and ineffective health and safety management arrangements in place, which had led to repeated incidents of unsafe methods of work. These included failing to ensure employees wore harnesses and multiple instances of incomplete or absence of edge protection.
The company also failed to adequately communicate information and instructions to its workforce. Its management team was not adequately trained in health and safety, despite receiving repeated warnings from its health and safety consultants. The firm’s director, Michael Febrey, was subsequently found to have had a direct bearing on allowing an unsafe working culture to exist on the site.
Carillion Construction repeatedly raised concerns to Febrey about its failure to control work-at-height risks at the site. But it failed to ensure Febrey improved its safety standards and allowed work to continue.
HSE inspector Anne-Marie Orrells said: “There were recurrent indicators that should have alerted Carillion to Febrey’s persistent and systematic failures throughout the whole project. Yet Carillion failed to adequately address Febrey’s significant failings. As the principal contractor on site, Carillion had a clear duty to plan, manage and monitor the construction work.”
Carillion Construction Ltd appeared at Swansea Crown Court on 23 November and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) and s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined a total of £130,000, and ordered to pay £52,000 in costs.
Febrey Ltd appeared at the hearing and it also pleaded guilty to s2(1) and s3(1) of the same Act. The company has gone into liquidation and was fined £85, although the judge said he would have fined it £250,000 before it became insolvent.
Michael Febrey also pleaded guilty to a breach of s37(1) of the HSWA 1974 and will be fined at a later date.
In mitigation, Carillion said it did have adequate systems in place to monitor contractors but accepted it failed to ensure Febrey acted on the safety failings. It also said it entered an early guilty plea and cooperated with the investigation.
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!
“narrowly missing carpenter Richard Haines”. I’m not CDM but I’m sure employees are supposed to be protected from falling objects.
“included failing to ensure employees wore harnesses”… any chance the HSE will take the employees to one side and bring a mass s7 prosecution?
“Carillion said it did have adequate systems in place to monitor contractors”. Clearly the use of “adequate” in that statement is bovine bio-waste.
Mr Samuel stepped on a ladder opening on the platform, which was inadequately covered by a fragile board. He fell 19 metres to the ground below.
Regardless of the fragile covering, why was the distance of fall below allowed to extend to a distance of 19m?
The CARRILION WAH procedures failed to indentify this serious risk, yet they expound about adequate systems? Beg to differ. (Documented procedures do not prevent injury in isolation).
How do they equate this failure then?
Editors, can we PLEASE PLEASE get terms right. “the principal contractor sub-contracted construction work…” NO!. As main contractor perhaps (and they may wear more than one hat). When wearing the Principal Contractor hat they do no work. They ensure, they take steps and they direct, they plan, they manage and they monitor. (Even the ACoP 150(h) gets it wrong. Read the regulations.
CDM does not recognise sub-contractors. Were Carrillion prosecuted as PC or as a contractor?
How was it that the fine equated to just £85, surely this is not justifiable , Carillion should have a duty to provide a safe place of work for its sub contractors and have a ruling in place to prevent poor work manship being allowed to continue,
For instance a two strike and off site ruling.
Near miss reporting and active monitoring could have possibly prevented this…
If only we would lose our dependence on paperwork and get experienced site supervisors out on site doing their job. You can bet that e-mails aplenty were flying around but I wonder whether anyone actually went outside and told the guys to work safely. The most important thing is to monitor and then take action to correct failings.
The accident happened in January 2008 and the court hearing was in November 2012 – does it really take that long to investigate an accident? That is shocking.