CONTRACTORS - 04.06.2024

Three companies fined as worker injured at Pirelli factory

What happened?

In November 2019 Ivan Weightman (W) was servicing a forklift truck (FLT) at Pirelli Tyres’ (P) factory in Carlisle. The FLT was leased by International Rubber and Tyre Recycling Ltd (I), and was parked up against a stack of waste tyres. Two metal skips were positioned on top of the stack to weight it down. To work on the FLT, W moved the vehicle a short distance away. As he walked to the front of the it, both skips fell from the stack and trapped him. He fractured four lumbar vertebrae, his left femur and was hospitalised for several weeks as a result of the incident.

Normal working practices

P was the owner of the site and contracted DCS Multiserve Ltd (D) to move materials on the site, and I to remove waste from the area. The HSE found that skips were routinely placed on the tyres to reduce them in size prior to them being transported off site. The truck was positioned to stabilise the unsecured skips. This improvised working method was approved by P and carried out by workers at I and D. There had been no effective control over access to the truck and the ignition key was routinely left in the cab. There was a lack of clarity over which contractor was responsible and as a result no risk assessment had been made and no safe system of work existed.

In court

P pleaded guilty to breaching s.3(1) Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (HSWA) and Regulation 11(1) Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSW) . It was fined £280,000 and ordered to pay £4,703.43 in costs.

I pleaded guilty to breaching s.3(1) HSWA and Regulation 11(1) MHSW . It was fined £9,000 and ordered to pay £4,566.13. D pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) MHSW , receiving a fine of £2,600 with costs of £15,000.

Co-operation and co-ordination

Regulation 11(1) MHSW states that where a workplace is occupied by more than one occupier they may need to co-operate and co-ordinate to some degree. In this instance the three companies all had their own method of operating, but had not formally communicated to ensure that the workplace was kept safe. Although it was a contracted engineer who was seriously injured, it could have happened to any of the employees from the three companies that routinely worked on site.

When routine goes wrong

This case highlights the risks of improvised work methods using unsuitable equipment. The phrase “rule of thumb” typically refers to a general principle or guideline based on experience rather than strict rules or precise measurements. In the workplace, relying solely on the “rule of thumb” can be unsafe as it may lead to poor decisions or actions that overlook critical safety measures.

Tip. To avoid slipping into undocumented routines, use our Process - Safe System of Work - Site Waste Disposal document to set out clear expectations for safety on your site (see The next step ).

For our Process - Safe System of Work - Site Waste Disposal, visit https://www.tips-and-advice.co.uk , Download Zone, year 22 issue 19.