Firm hit with £725,000 payout after warehouse worker killed

Justin O’Sullivan, SEMA approved rack inspector at Storage Equipment Experts

"Any fatality in the warehousing industry is tragic. However, it is especially saddening to hear HSE say that the death was "entirely preventable”. I wholeheartedly agree with HSE’s words. This death was caused by failing to meet some of the most basic warehousing safety requirements. Knowing how to stack your materials and how to keep your walkways clear are two of the most basic elements of storage management. Neither HSE nor any private health and safety organisation in the UK are unclear about this. Clear walkways and safe stacking are not grey areas; they are black and white.

"HSE recommends a two level approach to maintaining a safe warehouse. The first is a regular check by managers or staff in a logbook. The second is an annual check by a certified racking professional. What has been revealed at the court hearing is that CAV Aerospace ignored both managers’ and safety inspectors’ advice on the safety of their warehouse. For any company to ignore such obvious warning signs, especially a company with the money and resources that CAV Aerospace have, is completely unforgivable.

"Nothing can undo the damage that death causes, and I hope that this tragedy will serve to remind other companies of the seriousness of warehouse safety. Some business owners feel that efficiency can be achieved by cutting corners when it comes to safety. However, we cutting corners can come at a terrible cost. Hopefully, this sad story will make businesses like CAV Aerospace realise that the words and warnings of safety inspectors et al are not uttered to slow down productivity, but to ensure that every worker is as safe as possible.

"My thoughts go out to everyone affected by this tragedy, especially Paul Bowers’ friends and family."

Ruth Waring FCILT, MD of Labyrinth Logistics Consulting and founder of the Logistics Safety Circle

"Some of the aspects of this case indicate the need for improved communication between different sections of businesses. Others can learn lessons from this case in relation to supplier and contractor management, as well as internal communications between subsidiaries in the same group. Often it is unclear which part of the business is responsible for taking action, and - where responsibilities are not well defined - it is easy for the parties involved to take insufficient action.

"To prevent this type of incident happening in a complex supply chain, the following recommendations are made: 

- Identify at a group and subsidiary level which parts of the business are responsible for what, including risk assessments, safe systems of work, writing staff handbooks, carrying out staff, agency and contractor inductions and providing ongoing training and appointing local safety champions.

- Ensure that risk assessments and near misses / safety concerns are documented and, crucially, that action plans are owned within the element of the business which can implement change at local level and truly understands the hazards and risks involved.

- Ensure that those taking ownership for safety action plans (who is going to do what, by when?) have sufficient budget allocated to make the changes they need, or at least have a defined escalation procedure for asking for justifiable funds to make changes to improve safety (remember, money, time, trouble, effort and sacrifice should always equal the risk and hazard on the risk scales).

- Always remember that going higher up the hierarchy of risk reduction (in this case, removing the stacks from the walkways and reducing the height) is preferable to attempting to deal with a dangerous situation through information, instruction and training and/or PPE."