![[Basket]](images/basket.png){kind=small}
Your order![[cover image]](images/issue/BK201707.jpg)
Machinery and other equipment
[ch 7: pages 124-126]The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA), includes a duty to provide and maintain safe plant and safe systems of work and a duty to inform, train and supervise. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) set out more detailed requirements concerning all equipment used at work across industrial and service sectors. PUWER covers everything from photocopiers to combine harvesters.
For someone to have the obligation to maintain equipment, it must normally be within their power to be able to do so without obtaining someone else’s consent (Smith v Northamptonshire County Council [2008] EWCA Civ 181).
In Spencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd and others [2008] UKHL 46 HL, a worker repairing a door closer was injured by it. The House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) reversed a Court of Session decision and held that the door closer was “work equipment” within the meaning of the PUWER Regulations. It held that the door closer was apparatus for use at work and found the employer liable to maintain it.
Spencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd and others [2008] UKHL 46 HL
The most important requirement of the regulations is that the equipment must be suitable for the job it has to do. The Court of Appeal has ruled that work equipment should not be regarded as unsuitable when injury results from the mishandling of equipment that is otherwise safe to use.
Terence Griffiths worked at Vauxhall Motors car plant where he was injured by an electrical gun in 2000. He argued that a sudden upward movement of the gun — a “kickback” — caused the injury. Although he and other workers had complained about the kickback before, the judge found there was no inherent defect in the gun and that it worked within the parameters set by the manufacturer and the employer. However, Griffiths was awarded damages after the Court ruled that Vauxhall’s failure to carry out a risk assessment on the gun caused the accident. The Court ruled that, after a risk assessment, operators would have been instructed to hold the gun tightly, which would probably have prevented the incident.
Griffiths v Vauxhall Motors Ltd, Court of Appeal [2003] EWCA Civ 412)
Employers must:
• take into account working conditions and hazards when selecting equipment;
• ensure equipment is well-maintained and in good repair and working order, and keep maintenance logs up-to-date;
• ensure equipment is inspected after installation and before being put into service for the first time, or after assembly at a new site or in a new location. Where work equipment is exposed to conditions causing deterioration, it must be inspected at regular intervals and each time there is a possibility that the safety of the equipment has been jeopardised;
• ensure that where specific risks are involved, use is restricted and that any repair, servicing, modification or maintenance is carried out by those who have received adequate training; and
• ensure that appropriate information, instruction and training is given to employees and any supervisors or managers.
The need to maintain work equipment in good repair was confirmed in the following case:
David Stark, a member of the CWU communication workers’ union, suffered serious injuries when the brake stirrup on the bicycle he had been provided with snapped, throwing him over the handlebars. The Court of Appeal ruled that the regulations imposed an absolute duty and, since the bicycle broke, the employers must have been in breach of this.
Stark v The Post Office [2000] EWCA Civ 64
However, as explained on pages 16-17 of Chapter 1, as a result of a change in the law brought in by the 2010-15 Coalition government, in most cases it is no longer possible for a worker to claim compensation for injury or illness suffered as a result of a breach of health and safety law such as the PUWER regulations. It will only be possible to claim compensation if he or she can show that the employer was negligent. This does not mean that the employer can avoid these regulations, because a breach of the duty to maintain equipment in good repair can still lead to a criminal prosecution by the HSE (see Chapter 2). The change in the law does not affect claims based on injuries or diseases that occurred on or before 1 October 2013.
The PUWER regulations contain specific requirements regarding: dangerous parts of machinery; protection against particular hazards; high or low temperatures; control systems and devices; isolation from sources of energy; stability; lighting; maintenance operations; and markings and warnings.
Work Equipment ACOPs
The Safe use of work equipment: Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, Approved Code of Practice and guidance (L22) can be downloaded from the HSE website (www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l22.pdf).
The Safe use of power presses: Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (as applied to power presses), Approved Code of Practice and guidance (L112) can be downloaded from the HSE website (www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l112.pdf).
The Safe use of woodworking machinery: Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (as applied to woodworking machinery), Approved Code of Practice and guidance (L114) can be downloaded from the HSE website (www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l114.pdf).
In 2008, the Court of Appeal found in favour of a tube driver who was injured by the “dead man’s handle” brake on trains. The Court found that London Underground failed to carry out a risk assessment and to train rail union RMT member Latona Allison, as set out in PUWER (Allison v London Underground Ltd [2008] IRLR 440). The case provided important guidance on the duty to ensure that workers who use work equipment receive adequate health and safety training. It established that the duty to provide training is mandatory.
Part III of PUWER requires employers and other duty-holders to ensure that equipment is safe to use by preventing or controlling risks.
This could involve, for example, fitting roll-over protective structures (ROPS), falling object protective structures (FOPS), seat restraints (seat belts, lap belts and so on) and driver visibility aids such as mirrors.