When a continuing offence crosses the date when the courts could increase fines significantly
What happened?
A twenty-one year-old man was working at a high street fast food restaurant, managed by a franchisee. He was tasked with emptying oil from three of the branch’s four fat fryers. This involved emptying oil into an open bucket before carrying each load up some metal and concrete stairs and outside to the disposal area.
While carrying the oil in a metal bucket up some stairs he spilled oil on his feet, scalding himself and dropping the bucket. Other staff were then put at risk by the oil on the stairs when they rushed to his aid.
As a result of the scalding injuries, the man was off work for more than a month and was left with scarring.
The local authority EHO, investigated the case and found that: The oil was transferred whilst hot rather than waiting until it had cooled to below 40C; the metal bucket should have had a lid, but didn’t; the PPE provided was so large that staff could not safely use it so it was not effective; and no site specific risk assessment had been recorded identifying extra hazards such as the need to transport oil in buckets via metal steps
Legal Outcome
This is an extraordinary case from a legal perspective, as the risks the employees were exposed to and the accident itself crossed the date when the sentencing guidelines were revised in 2015. This is when a magistrate’s court could increase the amount it could fine someone from a maximum of £20,000 to unlimited.
The company was prosecuted for two identical breaches of Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974. The fine for breaching the Act before 12 March 2015 was £13,300. The fine for breaching the Act after 12 March 2015 was £153,360. A significant increase.
What can we learn from what happened?
This kind of task, the transportation of oil, introduces a number of risk factors, even if the oil had cooled down and was not, in itself, potentially harmful. Environmental factors such as distance travelled and the negotiation of the steps, human factors such as the competence of the member of staff, and how quickly he was expected to complete the task, occupational factors such as the method of carrying the oil (bucket without a lid), and organisational factors such as inadequate PPE and absence of a suitable and sufficient risk assessment. If you have ever done a health and safety course, you will recognise these risk factors as EHOO!
Then there is the quirk of the sentencing guidelines, demonstrating the greater freedom in the courts to increase fines for guilty organisations.
Source of Information
SHP In-Court