A manufacturing company has been fined after an apprentice’s hand was caught in machinery.
A 17-year-old apprentice, who had been working at Amber Industries Limited in Oldham for 18 months, was reaming work pieces using an unguarded pillar drill whilst wearing gloves, Manchester Magistrates’ Court was told. The glove on his right hand became entangled in the drill bit resulting in three of his fingers being severed. The incident happened on 21 November 2018.
An HSE investigation found there were no guards in place to prevent access to rotating parts and that the company had failed to provide suitable information, instruction and training to the apprentice, including clear instructions not to wear gloves. They also failed to provide adequate supervision and monitoring.
Amber Industries Limited of Crompton Street, Chadderton, Oldham pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £52,500 and ordered to pay costs of £14,442.
Speaking after the hearing, HSE Inspector Jane Carroll said: “This injury was easily preventable, and the risk should have been identified. Employers should make sure they properly assess and apply effective control measures to minimise the risk from dangerous parts of machinery”.
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!
Whatever “equipment” is being operated it has always been an occupational health and safety “duty of care” to ensure “reasonably adapted or adjusted” to prevent and/or mitigate the hazards or risk to the operator – doh
But, when the “reasonably foreseeable” or known consequences since 2007 of expediently doing nothing, apposed to doing something, anything at all pro-actively, to mitigate the predictable risk of a, so called, accident or no less predictable, perhaps longer latency, repetitive stress injury exhibited in employees presenteeism what then?