An incident where the skin on a worker’s palm was completely degloved by a conveyor system has landed a leading workwear company with a £400,000 fine.
On 16 December 2021, Sharon Chaplin, 51, was working an evening shift for workwear company Johnsons Textile Services Limited at the company’s site in Burbage, Leicestershire.
As Sharon tried to manually clean a sensor to initiate movement of a conveyor, her left hand was drawn into a gap where two conveyors belts met. She suffered extensive injuries to her left hand, with the skin completely ripped off the palm.
We spoke to investigating inspector Nick Moreby about how this happened and what Johnsons Textiles should have done to prevent it.
THE INCIDENT
‘Mrs Chaplin was working an evening shift as a charge hand – she was effectively a team leader whose job was to make sure the shift went smoothly,’ explained Nick.
‘Mrs Chaplin was assigned to look after two lines where garments – in this case, food safety and other protective coats – go through a wash process and then drop down onto a conveyor belt. The line is actually designed as five conveyor belts positioned end-to-end. The garments travel along and at the end of each conveyor unit there is a laser beam which, when garments break it, starts the next conveyor belt moving.
‘However, the conveyors didn’t always allow for an even distribution of garments, so the charge hand would have to manually move garments around so that people on different stations had work to do. Also, sometimes the beam sensors would get dirty or need a wipe to initiate the movement of the next conveyor.
‘Unfortunately, that’s what happened in this case. Mrs Chaplin was reaching over the side of the conveyor to wipe the sensor, and get the next conveyor moving, when her hand went into a gap between the two conveyors and she suffered very serious injuries – full degloving to the palm of her left hand.’
THE INVESTIGATION
Companies are obligated to report incidents like this under RIDDOR. In this case, it was reported relatively quickly – within four or five days. Nick went to site six days after the incident.
‘I examined the scene to ensure there was no ongoing risk, and then took any action that was required,’ he said. ‘Then I gathered the necessary information – risk assessments, method statements, technical documentation – and took photos and measurements.’
THE FINDINGS
‘I think, with conveyors, people don’t necessarily see the risk – it could potentially be because we are so used to seeing them at supermarket checkouts and other day-to-day places. So I don’t think people appreciate the risk around them, and that could well have been the case here,’ he added.
‘The company hadn’t assessed the risk properly. They hadn’t identified the risk here and therefore they hadn’t identified the appropriate control measures. They had a legal duty to do that and, because Johnsons is such a large company, it was something of a surprise to me that they hadn’t done that.”
THE PROSECUTION
At a hearing at Leicester Magistrates Court on 12 July 2023, Johnsons Textile Services Limited, of Logix Road, Burbage, pleaded guilty to breaching regulation 11(1) of Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER). The company was fined £400,000 and was ordered to pay £5,919 in prosecution costs.
WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED?
‘The frustrating thing is that this incident was completely preventable and avoidable,’ Nick said. ‘Conveyors present a known industry risk. There is a British Standard – BS EN620:2021 Continuous handling equipment and systems: Safety requirements for fixed belt conveyors for bulk materials – and it explains what to do to put things right. All that Johnsons needed to do was to reduce the gap between the conveyors to 5mm or less, because then it is near impossible to get trapped or drawn in between them.’
There are a couple of different ways that the company could do this, according to Nick. Within a day or two of the incident, Johnsons had moved the conveyors closer together. Then they introduced fixed nip bars, which are thin rods of metal that are used to reduce any subsequent gaps to 5mm or less. The risk was therefore removed.
The other option is to fit what’s called a ‘pop-out roller’. This is like a floating roller that sits in the gap but it is interlocked with the machine. So if your hand or anything else was to go into the gap, the roller pops out and, as it does so, it then activates the interlock switch to cut power to the machine.
That second option is lower down in the hierarchy of guarding that we’d expect to see because it relies on a protective device rather than a fixed guard. The fixed nip bars are fixed in place, requiring a tool to remove them and are very unlikely to fail once they are fitted. ‘The only issue is to remember to replace them if they are removed for maintenance, for example,’ added Nick.
WHAT CAN IOSH MEMBERS LEARN FROM THIS CASE?
‘I think many people and businesses take risk assessments for granted and see them as just a paperwork exercise. Actually, when they are done properly, they are absolutely crucial,’ he said.
‘If the time is taken to do a risk assessment appropriately then it will ensure compliance with the law. But you have to take the time to properly identify the risk, and identify who will be harmed and how they will be harmed. Then you have to take a holistic view of what you can do to reduce that risk. As long as that is then implemented, health and safety professionals will be in a much better position to protect their employees and protect their companies.
‘From my experience, a lot of companies don’t document things – they may have control measures in place, but typically, if they go back and review their risk assessments, there is more they can do. All it requires is to give the risk assessment a refresh and people will soon be able to identify further measures they can take or further risks they hadn’t previously identified.’