Metals firm sentenced and fined for endangering lives
A METALS business has been sentenced after it repeatedly endangering the lives of their employees by making them use defective and dangerous machinery.
A judge at Sheffield Crown Court heard that Meadowbank Vac Alloys was a serial safety offender.
Meadowbank Vac Alloys, of Harrison Road, Rotherham, was fined a total of £36,000 and ordered to pay £36,000 toward prosecution costs after pleading guilty to a single breach of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998; and multiple breaches of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 974, three relating to Prohibition Notices and two for offences of non-compliance with Improvement Notices.
The firm notched up 31 enforcement notices for safety breaches in just three months.
It allowed employees to operate vehicles and plant with high risk category A defects, meaning they were “immediately dangerous”, and continued to keep the machines in use even after being specifically prohibited from doing so by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
20 enforcement notices were served by HSE at the end of May 2012 after a visit by inspectors to the firm’s site in Harrison Street.
The court heard that there were a further four visits by HSE between then and early August when additional enforcement notices were issued.
These included seven which banned use of three forklift trucks, three mechanical grabs and a loading shovel that had no brakes. All had category A defects, identified by an independent engineer.
Although numerous extensions of time were granted by HSE to Meadowbank Vac Alloys to comply with the enforcement notices, the company continually failed to take adequate action and workers had to operate the defective machines.
In total 31 notices were served between 29 May and Aug 2012 identifying 57 safety breaches.
Investigating HSE inspector Denise Fotheringham said:”Meadowbank Vac Alloys displayed a reckless disregard for the safety of its employees and a persistent contempt for the legal notices issued requiring the firm to bring equipment to an acceptable standard.
“HSE exercised protracted patience with the company and was in regular contact with the director to ensure what was needed to comply was clear, unambiguous and fully understood.
“Despite being given ample opportunity, Meadowbank chose to ignore their responsibilities; put workers in danger on a daily basis; defy the law and turn a deaf ear to information, advice and guidance conveyed by inspectors and an independent engineer.”
