IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Who should decide, and at what point, that "enough is enough"?
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not sure I understand your post Chris. Do you mean by 'enough is enough' that the company should cease trading?
It is a terrible tragedy and it would appear from the history that this company has many 'issues' that need to be dealt with. I believe that the company has been enforced against before. But the enforcing authorities have never been able to 'shut a business down' despite that being a common statement, they can only enforce on specific issues as and when they arise.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Clairel I don't know if you were involved in the discussion recently following the large fire at the factory, the local MP George Howarth has stood up in Parliament and suggested the plant be shut down, I know what you say but there are continual safety issues there and surely there must be something that can be done?
I just don't know what?
Perhaps if there is a prosecution following either of the recent fatalities the Judge can remove the directors from their positions, but that just leaves the way for someone else to take over?
Do HSE not have any powers to get involved in a situation like this and assist management to ensure accidents do not happen?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I suppose it was invertible that this one was going to resurface, but I for one am happy to sit back and consider the facts (which we don't really know as yet), and indeed wait to see what offence, if any, has been committed and by whom, before I pass judgement. Any remedy from the courts would I assume have to be based on a conviction. (other than a civil case of course). While the HSE has allsorts of powers, they can't stand over the shoulder of management of a company in perpetuity, nor is it their function to do so.
Of course MPs stand up and say allsorts in parliament; and many often wish that they hadn't :-). Without knowing all of the facts of the case(s) it is difficult to know what the courts will decide, but the courts should weigh up the balance between the company remaining in operation, and the impact that this would have on the safety of the employees etc against the economic impact on the employees if the company was shut down.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Chris,
As Phil rightly points out MP's love to stand up and make grandiose statements but that doesn't mean they they are appropriate or possible.
The HSE does not have the power to permanently stop a company trading, there is no law they could utilise to that effect. And is that really something you would want to see? Think about the implications.
None of us really know all the facts of all these incidents and let us not forget that severity of outcome is not related to severity of breach (ie, an near miss could have resulted from a far greater breach of legislation than a fatality).
However, as an aside, whilst the HSE cannot be expected to stand watch over such companies it would be nice to see them held a bit more accountable when they fail to pick up on (or act on) breaches of law, especially when they lead to accidents. I know inspectors can't be expected to pick up on everything, especially as they may not see everything going on, but I know they also hide behind that as well. For example when inspectors have seen guarding standards and accepted them even when they aren't correct, which is one of the problems with having generalist inspectors no longer trained in industry specifics.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Without knowing the cause it is difficult to comment on whether the two incidents are related or indeed it shows a poor system of h&s management - it could be coincidence? If there is a causal link between the two incidents then I sincerely hope the 'book' gets thrown at the company. However, they definitely will not be able to claim in mitigation that they 'have a good safety record'!
Courts are generally unwilling to impose a large fine that in effect will be put the company out of business. There are rare exceptions. Personally, I think that if the company are so negligent that they should be put out of business. Whatever the case, I think there is a good argument to go for the directors by using director disqualification, s37 and also gross negligent manslaughter if appropriate.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If this fatality/accident is the tip of an iceberg how many more accidents lie beneath I wonder?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I believe they are being prosecuted for the deaths last December (According to the local rag).
Obviously again we don't know the ins and outs of the current case. All three are subcontractors but unsure if that makes much difference on this site as they seem to have had multiple incidents since opening.
With the massive fire they had it took over a week to put out, we had no choice but to keep windows closed while it was hot as otherwise you'd smell of whatever was in the smoke all day.
I can see the chimney from my office (i get all the best views...).
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Perhaps I'm missing something, or is this not worthy of a Prohibition Notice? Or even the next Corporate Manslaughter prosecution?
Of course, this is assuming that the ongoing operations are legally non-compliant in some manner.......
Pete
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The latest incident might well be worthy of an IN, PN or a prosecution on any number of counts, but without some detail, any postulation would be little more than speculation
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The latest news reports states that it was external contractor involved in demolition at the factory.
The incident may have nothing to do with the chipboard manufacturer at all.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Clairel you are exactly correct it is a demolition contractor, who we assume have control over that part of the site.
I would say though that as far as the public are concerned, and the media, it is another fatality at that factory.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I had a PM discussion with Chris regarding this place about 3 months ago, due to the fact i was aware this was close to his area, his fire background and the fact i delivered a training course at one of the groups premises in Ramsbottom.
It was just before the fire and the lads on the training course knew the deceased from the previous 'accident', apparently caused by someone starting up a machine whilst two people were working on it.
They told me there was allegedly a near miss AFTER the deaths in a similar situation and the person involved was lucky to get away with his life....but told not to bother reporting it as no one was hurt.
I believe this will run and run until the company no longer trades as there seems to be an underlying refusal to adhere to Health & Safety from top to bottom imo.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Moderator
|
Forum users are reminded that they should avoid speculation about cases that are under investigation, and this extends to the reputation of the company.
Forum rule 5 applies to this situation
Moderating Team
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
ChrisBurns wrote:Clairel you are exactly correct it is a demolition contractor, who we assume have control over that part of the site.
I would say though that as far as the public are concerned, and the media, it is another fatality at that factory.
Yep, unfortunately for the company concerned, anyone in Kirkby (i don't live here) will automatically blame them because of previous incidents espeically in relation to the two previous incidents, and the fact the local population believe the plant is casuing health problems locally (nothing to my knowledge proven).
And from what i've been told (not saying anything more) it is in the part that was or is under the demolition teams control to remove all the damaged building in relation to the massive fire they had.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
What happens when you give a dog a bad name?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The local rags sister morning paper has said this morning in relation to the previous deaths that the HSE have not yet decided whether to prosecute and that four enforcement notices were issued.
A bit less than its evening counterpart shouted about a few months ago but as expected with the Liverpool Echo.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not seen anything in print yet, but latest i've heard is not quite the same as The Liverpool Echo described. Obviously until any reports are issued people might continue to guess etc etc...
He was alledgedly in the cherry picker or similar but may have suffered a heart attack, as i say not confirmed but will see what comes out in the wash.
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Who should decide, and at what point, that "enough is enough"?
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.