The Safety and PPE Industry’s Largest Online Network

Sign Up here to receive free resources including the latest jobs, invitations to events and access to webinars, whitepapers and eBooks

Job
Board

Create a Job Seeker account and apply for jobs. If you are a Recruiter advertise your jobs for FREE

Sign up to our
monthly e-magazines

including Salus, The PPE Safety Showcase and SafeTech

Promote your
Business with Us

Find out about our marketing and advertising solutions

News

July 12, 2024

Update on the Alec Baldwin ‘Rust’ Court Case

The ongoing legal proceedings surrounding the tragic incident on the set of the film ‘Rust’ involving actor Alec Baldwin have seen significant developments recently. The case has attracted widespread attention due to the high-profile nature of the individuals involved and the unfortunate fatality of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.

Background of the Incident

The incident occurred on October 21, 2021, during the filming of the Western movie ‘Rust’ in New Mexico. Alec Baldwin, both a star and a producer of the film, discharged a prop gun that resulted in the death of Halyna Hutchins and injured director Joel Souza. The weapon, believed to be safe, contained a live round, leading to questions about safety protocols and accountability on set.

Legal Proceedings and Charges

In January 2023, Baldwin was formally charged with involuntary manslaughter, a serious charge reflecting allegations of negligence in the handling of the firearm. Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the film’s armourer responsible for weapon safety, faced similar charges. The prosecution argued that both Baldwin and Gutierrez Reed failed to follow standard safety procedures, which could have prevented the tragedy.

However, the case took a significant turn in April 2023 when the charges against Baldwin were dropped. The decision came after new evidence suggested that the gun might have malfunctioned, leading to the discharge without Baldwin pulling the trigger, as he has consistently claimed. This development shifted the focus to the weapon’s condition and the overall safety practices on set.

Current Status

Despite the dropped charges, Baldwin remains under scrutiny. The possibility of re-filing charges exists if new evidence emerges. Meanwhile, civil lawsuits have been filed by Hutchins’ family against Baldwin, the production company, and others, seeking damages for wrongful death. These lawsuits allege gross negligence and reckless behaviour, highlighting a broader issue of safety in the film industry.

Hannah Gutierrez Reed’s case is still active, with her legal team vigorously defending against the charges. They argue that she was not given adequate time to properly inspect the firearm due to the production’s tight schedule and budget constraints. Her case is expected to proceed to trial later this year.

Industry-Wide Implications

The ‘Rust’ incident has had a profound impact on Hollywood and the global film industry. It has sparked renewed discussions about on-set safety, particularly concerning the use of firearms. Major studios and production companies are revisiting their safety protocols, with some advocating for the increased use of digital effects to simulate gunfire, reducing the reliance on real weapons.

In response to the incident, New Mexico has introduced stricter regulations for film productions using firearms. The industry is also seeing a push from unions and guilds for better safety training and protocols to protect crew members from similar tragedies in the future.

Alec Baldwin’s Response

Baldwin has maintained that he is not responsible for Hutchins’ death, asserting that he was assured the gun was “cold,” meaning it was safe to use. In various interviews and public statements, he has expressed profound sorrow over the incident and its impact on Hutchins’ family. Baldwin’s legal team continues to argue that the fault lies with others responsible for checking and handling the firearm.

Conclusion

The ‘Rust’ court case remains a complex and evolving legal matter, reflecting broader concerns about workplace safety in the film industry. As the legal proceedings continue, the focus on improving on-set safety measures has never been more critical. The tragic loss of Halyna Hutchins serves as a stark reminder of the need for rigorous safety standards to protect all those involved in film production.

July 12, 2024

Celebrating 50 Years of the UK’s Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

In 2024, the UK marked the 50th anniversary of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, a landmark piece of legislation that has profoundly influenced workplace safety across the country. This Act has played a crucial role in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of workers, significantly reducing workplace accidents and illnesses over the past five decades.

The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974: A Historical Overview

Introduced in 1974, the Health and Safety at Work Act aimed to create a comprehensive and cohesive framework for workplace health and safety. Prior to its enactment, workplace safety regulations were fragmented and often inadequate, leading to high rates of industrial accidents and occupational diseases. The 1974 Act was designed to address these issues by establishing clear duties for employers, employees, and others responsible for workplace safety.

One of the Act’s key provisions was the imposition of a general duty on employers to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety, and welfare at work of all their employees. This included the obligation to provide safe machinery and equipment, safe systems of work, and adequate training and supervision. Employees also had responsibilities under the Act, including the duty to take reasonable care of their own health and safety and that of others who might be affected by their actions.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) was established by the Act as the primary body responsible for enforcing workplace health and safety regulations. The HSE has since played a vital role in promoting compliance with the Act and developing additional regulations and guidance to address specific risks.

Impact and Legacy

The impact of the Health and Safety at Work Act has been profound. Since its introduction, there has been a significant reduction in workplace fatalities and injuries in the UK. The Act has fostered a culture of safety and responsibility, encouraging employers to prioritise the health and well-being of their workers. Moreover, it has served as a model for other countries developing their own health and safety legislation.

Commemorating the 50th Anniversary

The 50th anniversary of the Health and Safety at Work Act was celebrated with a series of events and initiatives aimed at reflecting on the past achievements and future challenges of workplace safety.

Commemorative Events: Various events and conferences were held across the UK, bringing together health and safety professionals, employers, employees, and policymakers. These events provided a platform to discuss the Act’s history, its impact, and the ongoing efforts to improve workplace safety.

Publications and Media: Special reports and documentaries were produced to highlight the significance of the Act and its enduring legacy. Articles and interviews with key figures in the field of health and safety offered valuable insights into the evolution of the legislation and the continuous advancements in workplace safety practices.

Educational Initiatives: Educational campaigns, workshops, and seminars were organised to reinforce the importance of workplace safety. These initiatives focused on emerging risks and the need for employers and employees to stay vigilant and adapt to new challenges in health and safety.

Awards and Recognitions: In recognition of outstanding contributions to workplace safety, awards were presented to companies and individuals who have demonstrated excellence in implementing health and safety measures. The HSE acknowledged the efforts of various stakeholders who have played a crucial role in promoting and maintaining high standards of health and safety.

Looking to the Future

As the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 reached its 50th anniversary, it was not only a time to celebrate past achievements but also to look forward to the future. The evolving nature of work, with new technologies and changing work environments, presents ongoing challenges and opportunities for improving workplace safety. The principles established by the Act continue to be relevant, guiding efforts to protect workers and ensure that health and safety remain a priority in the UK.

The 50th anniversary of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 was a milestone that highlighted the progress made in workplace safety over the past five decades. It also served as a reminder of the ongoing commitment required to adapt to new challenges and ensure the well-being of workers for generations to come.

July 11, 2024

Explosives Manufacturer Fined £670,000 after Worker Dies

A manufacturer of military explosives has been fined £670,000 after an employee was killed and another seriously injured in an explosion at its factory near Salisbury.

The two men were working on the production of MTV – an explosive substance used in military flares – at the premises of Chemring Countermeasures Limited in High Post on 10 August 2018. They were cleaning a vessel used in the production process, removing residual explosive material in preparation for the next day’s shift.

Piotr Zukowski, 29, from Southampton, was partially inside the vessel when the remaining material exploded, killing him instantly. Another worker, Jake West, 32, was caught in the resulting fireball and sustained significant burns. Piotr’s mother, Elżbieta, said her life ‘stopped’ on the day her son was killed.

“At the time, I was on holiday in Greece with my younger, 13-year-old son Maks.

“Then, my son Piotr died at Chemring. That’s when my heart stopped.

“I don’t know how we got back, I don’t know how I survived the next weeks. It was and still is a nightmare.

“Piotr went to work, as usual, and never came back.

“I would give all my money, my life, just to see my son Piotr again, to hug him, to see his smile, to hear his voice.”

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that Chemring Countermeasures Limited of Romsey, Hampshire, had failed to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment. They had also failed to identify the build-up of explosive material within work equipment, or to recognise the sensitivity of these explosives. Furthermore, they had not put in place controls to ensure that this build-up of material did not present a serious risk to workers. Additionally, workers were poorly supervised, leading to routine non-compliance with process instructions.

The company holds an explosive licence, granted by the HSE, which permits the manufacture and storage of explosives. Activities carried out in the corridor compromised the route of access and egress from the building and were contrary to the conditions of the licence. It was also customary to have the doors to all the bays in the building open during the working day, again contrary to the conditions of the licence.

When the initiation occurred, because explosive waste was processed and stored in the corridor, it spread to other parts of the building, increasing the severity of the event. Mr West was injured, receiving serious burns, whilst working in the corridor.

Chemring Countermeasures Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. They were fined £670,000 and ordered to pay £12,835 in costs at a hearing at Swindon Magistrates’ Court on 27 June 2024. The prosecution was supported by HSE enforcement lawyer Alan Hughes and paralegal officer Ellen Garbutt.

After the hearing, HSE inspector David Myrtle said: “This tragic incident led to the avoidable death of a young man. It could easily have been prevented.

“The failure to properly recognise the hazards posed by MTV throughout the production process, the unchecked build-up of waste MTV, and a general lack of knowledge of good explosives practice meant the control measures in place were inadequate.”

July 10, 2024

Openreach Fined After Engineer’s Fatal Accident

Openreach Limited has been fined £1.34 million after an engineer died while attempting to repair a telephone line.

Alun Owen, a 32-year-old from Bethesda, died on October 6, 2020, after slipping and falling into the River Aber in Abergwyngregyn, where he was swept away. His family described him as a “loving and selfless character.”

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and North Wales Police investigated the incident, discovering that several Openreach engineers had been working on repairing telephone lines that crossed the river for two months. These engineers had been working both near and in the river. On the day of the incident, flooding had caused the river to be higher and faster flowing than usual.

Mr. Owen entered the water, making his way to an island in the middle of the river to try to throw a new telephone cable across to the other side by attaching it to a hammer and throwing it. While attempting to cross a deeper part of the river, he slipped and was swept away by the strong current.

The investigation revealed that there was no safe system in place for working on or near water. Additionally, Mr. Owen and his colleagues had not received adequate training, information, or instructions for safely working in such conditions.

In a statement, Mr. Owen’s family said: “The genuine love and affection shown to us since the tragedy that unfolded on October 6, 2020, is a real testimony to Al and how everyone just loved his friendly, loving, and selfless character. Although it’s sometimes difficult to see beyond the sorrow, we will keep his memory alive through reminiscing those many precious moments he had in his love-filled life.”

Openreach Limited pleaded guilty to breaching Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The company was fined £1.34 million and ordered to pay costs of £15,858.35 at Llandudno Magistrates’ Court on June 5, 2024.

HSE inspector Christina Roberts commented: “This was a tragic incident that resulted in the death of a much-loved young man. Mr. Owen’s family, friends, and colleagues have always remained in our thoughts. His death would have been preventable had an effective system for working on or near water been in place. Mr. Owen should not have been put in the unsafe working situation. Companies should learn the lessons from this incident if they have staff who may work on or near water and be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below the required standards.”

North Wales Police Detective Chief Inspector Andy Gibson added: “Our thoughts remain with Alun’s family at this difficult time. North Wales Police worked closely with HSE, and while it was a protracted and lengthy investigation, it was critical that any failings were identified and acted upon.”

This prosecution was brought by HSE senior enforcement lawyer Nathan Cook and supported by HSE paralegal officer Sarah Thomas.

July 8, 2024

Ground-breaking Agreement Accepted by the MoD, taking Responsibility for Hearing Loss

The Ministry of Defence has accepted responsibility for the hearing loss suffered by former armed forces personnel in a “ground-breaking” agreement at the High Court.

At a hearing on Monday, lawyers for the MoD acknowledged that it had a “duty of care” towards personnel amid legal claims brought by former members of the armed forces who suffered from hearing loss, having disputed this in earlier legal action.

The agreement applies only to those who have served in the regular or reserve armed forces since 1987 but does not apply to civilian military staff or cadets.

While the MoD accepts that noise exposure during service caused hearing loss among former personnel, it may dispute the extent to which this happened in individual cases.

That issue, and others in contention in relation to the claims, are due to be decided at a trial involving several “test cases”, which is expected to be held between October and December 2025.

The outcome of the trial will likely then affect how much compensation thousands of others could receive. Approving the agreement, Mr Justice Garnham, sitting with Judge Richard Davison, said: “We are happy to agree that order.

“I would add our congratulations to the parties for the consensus that seems to lie behind it.”

As part of the agreement, the MoD will also no longer contest claims brought by those represented by one legal firm, Hugh James, on the basis that they are being brought to court too late, or the level of noise they were exposed to.

This means that those represented by Hugh James will only need to prove they suffered hearing loss during service, with the amount of compensation received to be determined through a “matrix”, based on when someone left the military.

Claimants may still be able to launch an individual legal challenge if they disagree with what is offered.

Hugh James currently represents around 5,000 ex-servicemen and women, with thousands of others represented by other law firms.

Under the agreement, the MoD reserves the right not to offer compensation on the same terms as those determined by the “matrix” to those who are not represented by Hugh James.

Simon Ellis, partner and head of the specialist military department at Hugh James, said: “This is a groundbreaking development for servicemen and women seeking justice for their hearing loss.

“Many military personnel suffered hearing loss that was entirely preventable, had they been provided with the correct equipment and training.

“As a result, individuals have had their careers prematurely ended, other employment opportunities denied to them, and their personal lives irrevocably changed.

“People who put their lives on the line in the service of our country should expect that they are not put in additional unnecessary danger by their employer.

“The Ministry of Defence has both accepted the duty of care that they owe military personnel to protect their hearing and agreed that all individuals discharged after 1987 can secure the compensation they are entitled to for any hearing loss resulting from their military service.”

The agreement comes after a High Court ruling in March last year, where former Royal Marine James Barry was awarded more than £700,000 in compensation after having to leave the service because of hearing loss.

Mr Barry, 35, joined the Royal Marines in 2013 and began to suffer hearing loss during live-fire training exercises.

He was medically discharged in 2017 because of his hearing loss, which he described as “life-shattering” and leaving him feeling “very bitter” towards the MoD.

James Barry was medically discharged from the Royal Marines in 2017 (James Barry/PA)
In a ruling, Mr Justice Johnson said that while hearing protection was available for Mr Barry, it was “inadequate and incompatible with other equipment”.

He said problems “were well known” but “lamentably, it appears that nothing was done by the MoD to address the obvious and serious problem”.

He said: “At the time, it didn’t dawn on me how significant (being medically discharged) was. I have a lot more issues now with anxiety, stress, I feel like a lost boy. It’s really, really difficult.”

He continued: “People think I have won the lottery. The reality of it is I have had to drag my partner and my two young children through probably the most depressed, anxious six years I have ever had in my life.

“I am probably in a worse mental state than I ever had been. It is hard for me to think that I used to be this person who was considered mentally resilient, and the things that I achieved in (the Royal Marines). I am a shadow of that bloke now.”

Speaking to the PA news agency, Mr Barry said the agreement was “absolutely brilliant” and he hoped that it “changes the attitude of people”, and encouraged those with a “legitimate claim” to come forward.

July 5, 2024

First National Police Uniform and Equipment Survey Launched by Lancaster University, UK

Police officers and staff across England and Wales are set to be surveyed about their experiences with their standard issue uniforms and equipment as part of a new national initiative.

Starting from 1 July, researchers at Lancaster University, in collaboration with the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW) and the National Uniform Portfolio under the National Police Chief’s Council (NPCC), have launched the first-ever national survey on police uniforms and equipment. This survey will reach 200,000 police officers and staff.

Lancaster University Law School researchers Dr Camilla De Camargo and Dr Stephanie Wallace are spearheading this survey to capture a comprehensive overview of the daily experiences of police officers and staff, aiming to identify key issues with uniforms and equipment and areas needing improvement.

“This is an exciting opportunity for those wearing uniforms to voice their concerns and influence changes in uniform policies.

“With voluntary resignations in policing across England and Wales at an all-time high, it is essential for police forces to enhance staff retention by prioritising well-being and inclusive practices,” commented Dr De Camargo, lecturer and policing researcher at Lancaster University.

Evidence of poorly designed workwear is prevalent across various emergency services and has highlighted the serious health implications of neglecting issues with personal protective equipment and clothing, particularly for women. Dr De Camargo’s doctoral thesis found that police uniforms were traditionally designed by men, for men, tailored to masculine body shapes.

In 2023, Dr De Camargo initiated ‘When the Uniform Doesn’t Fit,’ a project investigating the significant and dangerous impacts of poorly fitted police uniforms on performance, health and safety, morale, and psychosocial well-being.

“After conducting women-only focus groups in five police forces, my initial findings revealed issues with all parts of the uniform for women, especially trousers and stab vests.”

The research also highlighted short- and long-term medical implications for women, including exacerbation of disabilities, chronic health conditions, and mental health challenges. Furthermore, current standard issue uniforms are also found to be unsuitable for men, with male officers reporting physical issues due to poor fit or design.

The survey is informed by Dr De Camargo’s previous work and has received input and support from the Home Office, The Open University, UNISON, the Superintendent’s Association, and Blue Light Commercial.

The survey results will guide future national decisions on uniform design, usability, and safety for all officers and staff. Running for six weeks, the survey results will be published later this year. The Joy Welch Fund supports this survey project.

About HSE People

HSE People is an online network of professionals who work within Health and Safety, the Environment and Sustainability and Risk and Compliance. We provide our members with free resources such as our career portal, events calendar, industry news, access to whitepapers, eBooks and webinars as well as information about products and services. The aim of HSE People is to support those who Protect People, Places and the Planet.

If you are a blogger or there is a subject you would like to write some content on please get in touch with us so we can share your thoughts and experience with your fellow professionals across our websites and social media platforms

Latest Jobs

NEED MORE INFO?

Send us a message