Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Employment Tribunal case 2602791/2018 (V) affirmed an Improvement Notice issued by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on 21 November 2018 against G D Precision Engineering Ltd for failing to implement effective guarding measures on milling machines as required by Regulation 11 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The Tribunal modified the compliance date from 14 December 2018 to 28 days from the decision date of 3 March 2021.
Issues
- Whether the Appellant had taken effective measures to prevent access, so far as is practicable, to the rotating cutters of the milling machines, as required by health and safety legislation
- Whether the Health and Safety Executive changed its requirements for guarding milling machines since 10 May 2017, as stated in their notices and communications
- Whether the Employment Tribunal would have served the improvement notice on 21 November 2018 based on the information available to the inspector at that time or which ought reasonably to have been available following investigation
Holdings
The Tribunal determined that the Appellant (G D Precision Engineering Ltd) had not taken effective measures to prevent access, so far as is practicable, to the rotating cutters of the milling machines. The Tribunal found that the Appellant had not properly considered the hierarchical approach to guarding as required by Regulation 11 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The Tribunal affirmed the Improvement Notice dated 21 November 2018, subject to a modification substituting the remedial date from 14 December 2018 to 28 days from the date of the decision.
Remedies
The Employment Tribunal affirmed the Improvement Notice dated 21 November 2018, but modified the compliance date from 14 December 2018 to 28 days from the date of the decision.
Legal Principles
The tribunal applied Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which establishes the employer's duty of care to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of employees so far as is reasonably practicable. The case centered on whether the Appellant had taken effective measures to prevent access to rotating cutters of milling machines as required by Regulation 11 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1988, which sets out a hierarchy of controls for machinery guarding.
Cited Statute
- Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974
- Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
Judge Name
- Mr K Rose
- Employment Judge Blackwell
- Mr J Purkis
Passage Text
- 77. It therefore follows that pursuant to section 24, we affirm the Notice, subject to the modification set out in the next paragraph.
- 72. We note, however, that when Mr Dickens was asked about the practicability of the screen shown at 174F by members of the tribunal, he appeared to accept that it was practicable and said: 'I could make such a screen in the time it takes you to get back to your car'. This seems to us to illustrate Mr Dickens' mindset. He has closed his mind to any proposal by the HSE.
- 73. It does therefore seem to us that a fixed guard of the type shown at 174F that could be applied in the circumstances shown would improve the safety of the operator. We therefore conclude that in that regard, the Appellant had not taken effective measures to prevent access so far as is practicable to the rotating cutters of the milling machines.