Manufacturer fined £172k after pallet machine injury

A Scottish manufacturer has been handed a £172,000 fine after an employee sustained life-changing injuries to his left arm when it became trapped in a pallet processing machine for 45 minutes.

Pallet repair operative Tyresse Munjaranji’s injuries were so severe that the incident has left him with impairment and permanent disfigurement.

The incident

The accident took place at a facility that the Larbert-registered manufacturing firm operated, and which is located at the Tesco Distribution Centre in Deans Industrial Estate, Livingston.

Livingston Sheriff Court, which sentenced the firm this week, heard how moments before the accident, the 22-year-old pallet repair operative had entered the machinery area through a broken safety fence with the intention of cutting away shrink wrap surrounding pallets.

He should have only been able to gain access to the machine using a lockable gate, which would have triggered a cut-off switch that would have stopped its parts moving.

According to the Judiciary of Scotland statement that was published after the sentence was passed, the operative became entangled in a drive shaft forming part of the machinery for about 45 minutes and had to be freed [by workmates].

The statement reveals that he sustained a midshaft fracture of the left humerus, radial and ulna, and also dislocated a finger.

His injuries were so severe that he had to have extensive surgery to repair the damaged caused, including having metal plates fitted into his arm to repair broken bones.

The Falkirk Herald reported that a section of bone also needed to be removed, which has resulted in his left arm now being shorter than his right.

The employee has been left with significant scarring that runs nearly the entire length of his upper arm and scarring to his wrist. The range of motion in his left arm is currently impaired.

The failings

Passing sentence, Sheriff Valerie Mays said the accident had happened because James Jones & Sons (Pallets and Packaging) had carried out a temporary repair to an insecure section of safety fence, which allowed the pallet repair operative to gain access to the machinery while it was still operating.

The manufacturer admitted it had failed to enforce a safe system of work by not securely maintaining the safety fence perimeter in a condition that prevented anyone’s access.

The firm also admitted that it failed to ensure that access to the area was via the interlocked gates at all times and it accepted that it did not supervise the employee appropriately.

“‘There is a perimeter fence around the machinery preventing access to the pallet inspection line,” notes the Sheriff’s statement.

“That fencing had been subject to a number of repairs by the company. At some point in the past, a section of the fence had fallen off its brackets.

“This was repaired by re-securing it by suspension from a metal strut along the top and securing it at the base by nuts and screws.

“At the time of the incident the nuts and screws had become detached so that the panel only remained attached at its upper end. The fence guard was not therefore fixed in place.

“I note that efforts had been made (by persons unknown) to give the insecure fence guard the appearance that it was in a fixed condition, effectively deceiving the observer.

“From a visual check, it would not have been obvious that the fence guard was insecure.

“No physical check of the fence guard was carried out. It appears that a failure to maintain routine procedural supervisory checks on the inspection/repair line resulted in the behaviour of bypassing the safe system of work occurring.

‘At the time of the accident the supervisor was on leave and an interim relief supervisor had been deployed. Due to issues with absenteeism, resulting in staff shortages, he was also deployed in other duties involving driving a forklift truck when necessary.’

The Sheriff’s statement added: ‘I was not provided with any information as to why an employee would have chosen to access the machinery through an insecure fence panel rather than through the interlocked gates.

“I can only infer that it was perhaps quicker to deal with any blockage or removal of shrink wrap that way, rather than opening the interlocked gate which caused the machinery to stop.

“Munjaranji was trained in how to access the interlocked guarded area for the purpose of repairing a pallet jam approximately 13 months before the date of the incident.

“I have seen evidence of the relevant training log signed by him, which provides a set of clear, step-by-step written instructions illustrated by photographs as to the process which should be followed to ensure that the interlocked gate can be accessed safely for the purposes of clearing a pallet jam.

“I would observe that the action of a victim is not considered a contributory event for sentencing purposes.

“Employers are required to take steps to protect workers and others who may be neglectful of their own safety in a way which is reasonably foreseeable.’

In court

When determining the sentence and the size of the fine, Sheriff Mays considered the fact that James Jones and Sons (Pallets and Packaging) had no previous convictions and a good safety record.

• She also considered the remorse it expressed for the incident and the fact that the firm had admitted responsibility promptly.

Importantly, it had also undertaken a comprehensive investigation, which resulted in a number of steps and remedial measures being taken, including: the demotion of the relief supervisor;

• Immediate repairs to the fence guard;
• Refresher training provided to all employees on procedure regarding accessing the interlocked guarded area;
• An increased number of safety inspections;
• A review of all workplace risk assessments and internal audit procedures and identification of and improvements to said audits; and
• A company-wide safety culture initiative to increase hazard and near miss reporting.

However, she also considered that any employee working on the pallet line during the relevant period had been exposed to the risk of harm.

As the Sheriff’s statement noted: “The clearing of a blockage or removing of shrink wrap involved employees such as Munjaranji coming into contact with machinery with moving parts in which they could become entangled and injured (as happened in Munjaranji’s case).

Sheriff Mays said: ‘James Jones & Sons (Pallets and Packaging) Limited…pled guilty by way of section 76 indictment to a charge that as an employer at factory premises in Deans Industrial Estate, Livingston.

“It failed to enforce a safe system of work for the operation of a pallet inspection line by first, failing to ensure that the safety fence around the perimeter was maintained so that an employee who required to access the inspection line near moving and rotating parts of the line was unable to do so except by the means of an interlocked gate.”

HSE: Information about health and safety at work