Factories urged to put safety first after greater Manchester company ignores rules for eight years

Date:

24 June 2009

Release No:

HSE/NW/015crest/09

Factory owners in Greater Manchester are being urged to put the safety of their staff first after an aerospace engineering company regularly ignored health and safety rules for eight years.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecuted Crest Engineering Company Ltd after finding safety guards missing or not in use on several 'milling' machines, which are used to shape metal.

The company had previously been ordered to replace the guards on the machines at its factory, at Throstle Bank Works on Dukinfield Road in Hyde, but they were later removed or unlocked.

Crest Engineering, which is based at Stamford House on Stamford Street in Stalybridge, pleaded guilty to two health and safety offences at Trafford Magistrates Court on Tuesday 23 June. It was fined £13,000 and ordered to pay costs of £3,003.

The company was prosecuted for breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 by failing to ensure the safety of its employees. It was also charged with breaching Regulation 11(3) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 by failing to make sure the machine guards were well maintained, in an efficient working order and in good repair.

HSE Inspector David Norton said: "Crest Engineering took a deliberate decision to remove the safety guards on the machines despite receiving a formal warning from us about the issue.

"Safety guards are there for a reason and, by not providing them, the company put the lives of its employees in danger. Factory work can be extremely dangerous and so it's vital that the risks are reduced to a minimum.

"We will not hesitate to prosecute anyone who persistently ignores the rules, and I hope this case will act as a warning to companies who do not take health and safety seriously."

The HSE first served Crest Engineering with an Enforcement Notice in 1999 for failing to have a safety switch on a piece of machinery. When inspectors visited the site again in 2001, they served eight Enforcement Notices after finding safety guards missing on several machines.

Witness statements given to the HSE revealed that, although the guards were initially provided following the visit, they were removed or put out of use within a few months. Inspectors took the decision to prosecute the company after revisiting the site in May 2007.

Notes to editors

1. Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: "It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees."
2. Regulation 11(3) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 states: "All guards and protection devices...shall:
   1. a) be suitable for the purpose for which they are provided;
   2. b) be of good construction, sound material and adequate strength;
   3. c) be maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair;
   4. d) not give rise to any increased risk to health or safety;
   5. e) not be easily bypassed or disabled;
   6. f) be situated at sufficient distance from the danger zone;
   7. g) not unduly restrict the view of the operating cycle of the machinery, where such a view is necessary; and
   8. h) be so constructed or adapted that they allow operations necessary to fit or replace parts and for maintenance work, restricting access so that it is allowed only to the area where the work is to be carried out and, if possible, without having to dismantle the guard or protection device."

Press enquiries

Regional reporters should call the appropriate Regional News Network press office.

Issued on behalf of HSE by COI News and PR North West.