Black Country metal polishers fined after workers injured
A WEST Midlands metal polishing firm has been fined after two workers were injured in separate incidents involving inadequately guarded machinery.
The first occurred at Farrelly’s Metal Polishers in Wednesbury on March 1 last year when employee Ubaid Rehman’s left hand became trapped in an edge-polishing machine.
He was attempting to reach an adjuster knob behind a pinch roller drive shaft in order to reposition the machine belt when his glove became entangled.
The second incident, on August 12, saw Lee Rogers’ right hand drawn into a tube polisher. He was removing a finished tube that had become lodged in the polishing head area when his glove caught on an abrasive belt, dragging his hand between the belt and the tube.
Both workers suffered severe injuries that required extensive skin grafts. Mr Rehman now has poor grip and numbness in his left hand while Mr Rogers is still being treated to restore tendons in his hand. Both are still off work.
A Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found that the machine Mr Rehman was working on was completely unguarded at the working position, and that inadvertent contact with moving parts was a clear and ever present danger.
Warley Magistrates Court heard that following the first incident and subsequent HSE intervention Farrelly’s made improvements to the guarding of this and other machinery.
However, the guarding fitted to the in-feed working position on the machine Mr Rogers was operating was not adequate for work on the outfeed side of the machine. It became necessary for Mr Rogers to walk round to the other side of the machine to dislodge heavy tubes that kept getting stuck.
Farrelly’s Metal Polishers pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for its guarding failures. The company was fined £14,000 and ordered to pay £6,800 in costs.
After the hearing HSE inspector Carol Southerd said: “Had Farrelly’s better assessed its processes and safe working procedures, the company could have taken more effective steps to restrict access to dangerous parts on the machines involved. The two serious incidents and resulting injuries could therefore have been avoided.”
