Heywood frm receives 250k fne after worker's fatal fall

from height
A Heywood-based logistics frm received a hefty fne at Manchester Crown Court over
January in a prosecution brought forward by the Health and Safety Eecutive !HSE"#
Arame !$%" &td' of Heywood (istribution )ar*' was fned a total of +,-.'... with costs
of +,.'... in the hearing' while ---year-old roofng contractor /ary Edwards was given
a four-month 0ail sentence suspended for one year' after both parties pleaded guilty to
one breach of the Health and Safety at 1or* etc Act 2345#
Section ,!2" of this wor*place health and safety law calls for employers to ta*e all
reasonably practicable steps to protect the welfare' health and safety of their
employees while in the wor*place#
6he hearing related to a fatal accident at wor* on (ecember 2,
th
,.22# 6he court was
told that Arame too* on Mr Edwards to repair a lea* to the roof and clean the
guttering of the company7s o8ces and warehouses at the 9ing way 6rading Estate# Mr
Edwards arrived on-site with 5:-year-old Stoc*port resident Michael Sweet# Mr Sweet
was clearing the guttering when he put his foot on a clear roof panel' which was
supposed to let natural light into the warehouse# 6he fragile panel bro*e and he fell
through it and landed on the concrete ;oor# Ambulances were called' but Mr Sweet7s
in0uries were very serious and he died on his way to hospital#
1hen interviewed about the accident at wor* under caution' Mr Edwards' of /atley7s
Silverdale 9oad' said the only wor*place safety e<uipment he had given to Mr Sweet
for the tas* at hand was a pair of gloves#
Some of the health and safety measures that could have prevented the fatal wor*place
accident from occurring include harnesses' sca=olding' or cherry pic*ers' or boards
could have been placed over the roof panels# Mr Edwards did not carry out a ris*
assessment and did not implement any of these measures#
>urthermore' HSE investigations revealed Arame had also breached health and safety
guidelines by failing to assess how the wor* would be performed and by failing to
supervise the wor*#
HSE ?nspector ?an @entley said Mr Edwards and Arame did not consider Mr Sweet7s
health and safety ade<uately' and this sadly led to his death#
He noted that Mr Edwards had wor*ed at the same warehouse several times in the past
and was aware that the roof may be dangerous# >urthermore' Arame *new the wor*
was dangerous but simply allowed the employees to the 0ob' rather than assessing how
it would be underta*en and monitoring it#
Mr @entley highlighted the legal duty of care employers and individuals have towards
the wellbeing of wor*ers through health and safety law# He said if Mr Edwards and
Arame had ta*en these responsibilities AseriouslyA' Mr Sweet may still be alive today#
>alls from height are one of the leading causes of wor*-related death in the $%#
Companies uncertain of the wor*place safety regulations and guidelines relating to
wor* at height should visit the HSE7s dedicated webpage#
Carol is a freelance blogger and 0ournalist who wor*s alongside a team of cash advance
solicitors to provide timely articles about compensation claims' health and safety and
a range of other matters# httpBCCcashadvancesolicitors#co#u*C