Home » News
News

‘Foolhardy’ Tata Steel fined £450k after worker fell into open pit

Tata Steel UK has been fined £450,000 after a worker fell into an unguarded pit, despite a risk assessment 16 months earlier identifying the need for barriers.

tata

Steven Ayres was injured working as a scaler on the scarfing line, in which metal is torched to remove imperfections, at the steelmaker’s billet mill in Stocksbridge, Sheffield. A billet is a cast or hot-rolled length of steel that can be further processed to make bars or rods. 

Water runoff and impurities from the scarfing process were collected in a skip stored below ground in a pit 3.7 m by 2.5 m by 2.5 m and covered by two metal plates that sat flush with the floor. 

On 26 February 2014, Ayres and an overhead crane operator removed the cover plates and lifted the skip out of the pit to empty its contents. After completing this job, the two workers went to replace the plates. 

Ayres connected the crane hooks to lugs on either side of the first plate and the operator lowered it into position. As he did so, the plate swung slightly so, when the second was raised, Ayres moved out of the way. He stepped back and fell into the pit, sustaining a lacerated kidney and broken ribs.

Tata immediately installed guardrails around the pit’s perimeter to reduce the risk of a fall, a work at height control measure it had identified in its risk assessment in October 2012. 

The document said: “Look at designing a safety barrier around the open floor when floor plates have been removed to empty the scarfer skip.”

Just three months earlier, Swansea Crown Court fined Tata £500,000 after an operative died when he fell into an open blast furnace trough. Mark Welsh, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) inspector responsible for the investigation, described the penalty as “seriously significant”. 

He added: “For Tata to identify the risk and what is needed, to then take no further action is just foolhardy on the part of the company because you are putting everything at risk.”

Judge Slater said during the sentencing at Sheffield Crown Court he could have imposed a fine of up to £800,000. But he had reviewed this in light of the fact the company is “materially smaller” than four years ago when the accident happened and to reduce the impact on members of the British Steel Pension Scheme, whose obligations Tata inherited.

“The judge was looking at not just the issue of the incident and the correct fine [in relation to the sentencing guidelines] but also the effect on Tata as a business,” Welsh said. 

He added: “But Tata placed themselves in that position because they didn’t take simple measures that would have removed that risk from their business. To put a workforce at risk of death will never be acceptable.” 

The company pleaded guilty to breaching s 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act at the earliest opportunity. It was also ordered to pay costs of £32,099.

Sentencing guidelines application

Culpability:

High

Seriousness of harm risked:

Level A 

Likelihood of harm:

Medium

Harm category:

2

Size of the organisation:

Large

Turnover:

£2.38bn

Starting point for fine:

£800,000

Mitigation:

Immediate remedial action, financial status of the company and Britain’s steel industry, and early guilty plea

Financial penalty:

£450,000 plus £32,099 costs

 

 

 

Keeley Downey is acting deputy editor of IOSH Magazine. She is a former editor of Biofuels International, Bioenergy Insight and Tank Cleaning Magazine

Comments

  • A company with deep pockets

    Permalink Submitted by Dazzler on 7 September 2018 - 01:10 pm

    A company with deep pockets and not much health and safety sense.

    When are the people running this company going to accept that they've got a real health and safety problem in their organisation?

    Totally unacceptable position to be in.

    reply
  • Tata have invested a lot

    Permalink Submitted by Jeffrey Smith on 30 April 2019 - 12:57 pm

    Tata have invested a lot of money in the UK in recent years so why do they not invest in aspects such as this?

    reply

Add new comment