Social media

Javascript is required to use HSE website social media functionality.

Five in court for multiple safety failings

Date:
24 July 2014

A Lincolnshire poultry firm and four of its contractors have been fined for repeated safety failings after workers were caught on a roof without taking proper safety precautions.

GW Padley Poultry Ltd were prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after inspectors witnessed unsafe working at height while building a poultry shed at the company’s site in Wigtoft, Lincolnshire, in March 2012.

The poultry firm was the principal contractor but had no representatives on site. The poultry buildings were supplied by Harlow Bros Ltd of Loughborough, who sub-contracted the erection of the buildings to K & M Tomlinson Ltd, and Philip Bates.

Lincoln Crown Court was told today (24 July) that HSE visited the site on 13 March 2012 and saw four workers on the roof of a new poultry building. There was no edge protection or scaffolding in place and the height of the gable roof was about six metres.

When the inspector asked the workers to come down, they had to walk about ten metres along the sloping roof and down an unsecured ladder. The inspector issued Kenneth Tomlinson, director of K & M Tomlinson, with a Prohibition Notice, stopping further work on the roof until suitable edge protection was put in place.

When the inspector revisited the site three days later, work on the roof had been completed. A tower scaffold was at one end of the eaves and 12 airbags were on the floor at the other end of the building, but there was still no edge protection.

The inspector returned later the same day with a colleague and found workers, including Philip Bates, on the roofs of two sheds. The scaffold tower seen earlier had been dismantled.

HSE found airbags used for cushioning a fall were loose and anyone falling would have hit the ground. Faults were also found with a forklift truck being used in conjunction with work platform fitted to its prongs. A second Prohibition Notice was served, preventing further work on the shed roofs.

Further enforcement notices were issued to GW Padley Poultry, Harlow Brothers and Mr Bates to prevent all work on sloping roofs until adequate edge protection and internal fall protection was provided and an Improvement Notice was served on the poultry firm requiring them to appoint a competent site manager.

Harlow Brothers put in place a lifeline and harness system for safe working at height, but this was found to be inadequate on inspection and a further Improvement Notice was served.

The court heard that Harlow Brothers Ltd and Philip Bates have previous convictions for work on poultry house roofs without edge protection.

GW Padley Poultry Ltd of Mount Street, Nottingham, pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 22(1)(a) and regulation 22(1)(c) of the Construction (Design and Management ) Regulations 2007 and was fined £9,000 and ordered to pay £15,000 costs.

Harlow Brothers Ltd of Long Whatton, Loughborough, Leicestershire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 on two separate occasions, the 13 and the 16 March 2012 and Section 4(2) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay £15,000 costs.

K&M Tomlinson Ltd of Nottingham Road, Long Eaton, pleaded guilty to breaching Sections 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and Section 5(1)(a) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998, and was fined £1,000.

Kenneth Tomlinson of College Street, Long Eaton, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) by virtue of section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £3,000 costs.

Philip Bates of The Square, Leasingham, Lincolnshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and was fined £4,500 and ordered to pay £5,550 costs.

After the hearing, HSE inspector Martin Waring said:

“In this case there was clear evidence of a very poor attitude to health and safety generally on this site. Each of the defendants had clear duties to ensure the safety of the workers, however these were repeatedly ignored.

“Working at height poses very obvious dangers but our visits uncovered a catalogue of safety breaches which could have had led to a fatal or very serious injury for a worker had they fallen.

“There was a continued and deliberate neglect of duties by particular parties in this case; and directors who disregard their responsibilities will be held personally accountable.”

For further information on HSE’s work and advice for roof workers, go to www.hse.gov.uk/construction/safetytopics/roofwork.htm

Notes to Editors

  1. Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: “It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.”
  2. Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: “It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.”
  3. Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: “It shall be the duty of every self-employed person to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that he and other persons (not being his employees) who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.”
  4. Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: “Where an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
  5. Section 22(1)(a) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 states that: “The principal contractor for a project shall (a) plan, manage and monitor the construction phase in a way which ensures that, so far as is reasonably practicable, it is carried out without risks to health or safety.”,
  6. Section 22(1)(c) of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 states that: “The principal contractor for a project shall ensure that welfare facilities sufficient to comply with the requirements of Schedule 2 are provided throughout the construction phase.”
  7. Section 5 (1)(a) of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 states that: “Every employer shall ensure that lifting equipment for lifting persons, subject to sub-paragraph (b), is such as to prevent a person using it being crushed, trapped or struck or falling from the carrier.”
  8. Section 4 (2) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 states that: “In selecting work equipment, every employer shall have regard to the working conditions and to the risks to the health and safety of persons which exist in the premises or undertaking in which that work equipment is to be used and any additional risk posed by the use of that work equipment.”

Media contacts

Journalists should approach HSE press office with any queries on regional press releases.