A waste management company has admitted safety failings after a worker lost most of his arm when it was pulled into an unguarded conveyor.
Agency worker Vladislavs Golovacs was attempting to clear a blockage on a conveyor, when the incident took place at Pinden Ltd’s quarry in Longfield, near Dartford.
The conveyor, which was used to transfer waste into a sorting shed, had a tear on a conveyor belt that was positioned above the machine’s roller. This allowed stones to fall into the roller, which caused it to judder and on some occasions created blockages.
On 20 December 2010, Mr Golovacs was part of a team who were operating the machine. A stone became caught in between the roller and its metal housing. During previous blockages, workers stopped the machine to remove the debris. But bosses as the site became frustrated, as this caused production to slow down, and created a backlog of waste at the start of the line.
Mr Golovacs attempted to remove the blockage while the machine was still in operation, and his glove got snagged on the roller and his arm was pulled into the machine. He feared that his head would be pulled into the machine, so he pulled against the force, and his arm was ripped from his body between his shoulder and elbow – leaving just a quarter of the limb intact. He was airlifted to hospital, where surgeons were unable to reattach his arm. He has been unable to return to work owing to his injuries.
The HSE found the machine did not have any guards to prevent access to the roller. The company had not carried out an adequate risk assessment and Mr Golovacs had not been trained in how to remove blockages.
HSE inspector Andrew McGill said: “This was a horrific incident that was entirely preventable had appropriate guarding been fitted, and had Mr Golovacs been properly trained in how to clear a blockage.
“He knows to his cost that dangerous moving parts should be properly restricted when in operation, and isolated if access is required. However, it was the responsibility of Pinden Ltd to ensure that happened – which it clearly didn’t on this occasion. Safe systems of work must be of paramount importance at all times.”
Pinden Ltd appeared at Dartford Magistrates’ Court on 17 May and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined £10,000 and ordered to pay £11,506 in costs.
In mitigation, the firm said it installed a guard to the machine hours after the incident. It also claimed that the risks posed by the machine weren’t identified by a health and safety consultancy who had been contracted to carry out monthly inspections at the site.
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!
I bet that the culture is exactly as you say Bob; “JFDI! Or there’s the door!”
Turn back the clock and I bet this poor man was probably just following the instructions of his supervisor.
I see that the company has replaced the guard, can they put Mr Glovacs arm back now?
10 grand – What an insult! How long before continuing production becomes a priority and prompts re-removal of the guard – and the dice start rolling……..again!
Another open and shut case for no-win-no fee lawyers!
If you want the lottery results for 23/05/12, I’ve got those!
How much accountability is now to be placed on the H&S consultancy firm, who undertook the safety checks?
Totally agree, most don`t know there PUWER from thier elbow.
Sorry, should have read ar— from elbow.
People only bahave how they are permitted to behave by those in charge, ignoring bad behaviour only endorses bad behaviour.
Managers, supervisors and those that know better should educate those who clearly do not know, and off load those that do, but choose not too. Its not rocket science.
I am amazed at the continuous condemnation of fines imposed, yet the courts continue to impose relatively low fines given the abject failure to apply basic controls to forseeeable risk.
And when techinaclly minded professionals are found wanting the level of fine imposed does not reflect the seriousness of the offence given thier status as being “in the know”
10 k is an insult to all reasonable thinking people.
And if this risk was missed by a H&S consultant god help us all.
Ray,
I think you`ll find he was an employee, hence section 2(1) conviction.
They should have hit them with PUWER and MHSW as well?
Apologies Ray, the inference of “Agency” can be misinterpreted as non-emploee.
As an “employee” there had to have been a proven contract of employment with the defendents, hence Section 2..
Regardless of the Agency status, the employer still had a duty to comply fully with the HSW Act 1974, a problem that reocurrs endlessly with my employers over the years, believing that “Agency” status implies less burden upon them as an employer.
£10000! What deterrence is this to other companies, None! This company should have been fined far more and what about prosecuting the management? Poorly trained, non UK people are not to blame!
I am an experienced professional from the quarrying and mining industry and this is something that should never happen. However, I am regularly amazed by the lack of awareness by other supposedly competent safety professionals who fail to identify inadequate guarding allowing access to dangerous parts
This poor chap like me must find it really funny that this company fine is less than the costs.
but this isn’t anything new.
Steve, did you not read the article?
People sometimes do things which with hindsight appears to be illogical – the IP was agency staff, therefore probably not familiar with the process . The company failed to provide the necessary training, instruction and information to the worker which would have prevented this type of unnecessary accident. Moreover, the company failed to ensure the equipment had been properly risk assessed and a guard in place to prevent access to moving parts – simples!
Bob, the article does say the IP was an ‘agency worker’, however I suspect for h&s law he was considered to be an employee. The definition of an employee can be a bit murky.
It is also a fact that agency workers tend to get less support, training, PPE, etc than regular employees.
Could it be that the H&S consultants only obtained this contract on the basis of being short-sighted and only kept it by being blind to the hazards?
It also seems odd that the guard was replaced “hours after the incident”, could it be that the problem was a commonplace event and that someone had chosen to remove it to speed things up?
All very behavioural safety if you ask me.
The worker gets the blame for doing it or, likely as not, he sack for refusing to.
Why is it not down to the person who put his arm in?
I guess this incident will happen in the future as it happened in December 2012. So what is the lottery numbers for 23/05/12. Anyway this should have never happened exposed moving parts you just know some will try to put something in there or take something out, I blame totally the management and will abit the h and s consultancy, it maybe that when they visited that it was covered up as they only came monthly.
There is also some blame to the guy, you should know that you never put your part