Defence giant BAE fined £100,000 over death of employee who was crushed to death inside huge machine

  • Firm criticised for health and safety failures
  • Gary Whiting, 51, was one year from retirement

By
Damien Gayle

14:32 EST, 11 April 2012

|

14:32 EST, 11 April 2012


Crushed to death: Gary Whiting, 51, died immediately when a co-worker switched on a machine while he was still inside

Crushed to death: Gary Whiting, 51, died immediately when a co-worker switched on a machine he was inside

Arms maker BAE Systems is facing a fine of at least £100,000 after admitting responsibility for the death of a worker crushed to death in a metal press.

Gary Whiting, 51, died immediately from his injuries when a fellow worker switched on the press at BAE’s Brough plant in East Yorkshire without realising he was still inside.

Mr Whiting, who lived with wife Jacqueline in nearby east Hull, had worked at the company for 21 years. He was due to retire the following year.

At Hull Crown Court yesterday, BAE Operations Limited admitted health and safety breaches led to the maintenance man’s death on November 10, 2008.

In court, a specialist inspector from the Health and Safety Executive condemned the firm for failing to implement measures that could have avoided the tragedy.

In particular, investigators were concerned that the press could be turned on while a person was inside.

At the time of the tragedy, Mr Whiting had been working as part of a four-strong maintenance team, tasked with servicing the machine.

The jury at the inquest was told the recognised ‘safe system’ of working involved checking if anyone was in the machine, and shouting to one another, before turning it on.

However, John Moutrie, a specialist HSE inspector, criticised the system that was in place for workers using the machine.

He explained that a safer system of working would be using ISO Locks, where each member of the team has a padlock to place on the machine if they are going inside.

This would eliminate the risk of a worker turning on a machine, not knowing a colleague is inside, he said.

Richard Lissack QC, representing BAE, said: ‘The company accepts it failed to take all reasonable and practical steps to care for the safety of this man who died in this awful accident.’

He added that the company accepted they could have had ‘physical control methods’ that could have been used to avoid Mr Whiting’s death.

Entrance to BAe Brough Plant: This entrance is situated on Saltgrounds Road

Entrance to BAe Brough Plant: This entrance is situated on Saltgrounds Road

The QC extended BAE’s condolences to the Whiting family, saying: ‘Mr Whiting was a valued and popular workman and highly experienced.

‘His death was truly shocking, in the truest sense of the word, to those who knew and liked him for many years.’

Mr Whiting was a member of both East Hull Harriers and Athletics Club and Holderness Bowling Club and loved his job, according to his family.

Speaking after the inquest recorded a verdict of accidental death, they said they did not believe Mr Whiting was at fault as he was not told the machine was about to be turned on.

They also made clear they do not hold Alan Abbott, who turned the machine on, to blame.

In a statement, they said: ‘The family do not hold the operator of the press, nor indeed any other individual, personally responsible for Gary’s death.’

Judge Michael Mettyear adjourned sentencing until a date in June.

Earlier this year BAE announced it was shutting down its Brough plant, ending more than 100 years of manufacturing at the site.

Here’s what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts,
or debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have not been moderated.

I work in an engineering environment. This accident happened as a result of people not following the correct procedure. Nothing new has to be implemented but it ALWAYS does. This results in additional procedures, red tape, sometimes very expensive safety equipment slowing down production unnecessarily
DO your job correctly and accept liability for your make mistakes please! For the sake of everyone else who does do there job correctly and gets punished with this remedial BS!!

How can you not hold responsible the person who turned it on ? it’s like those two guys who died in the furnace last year. Everybody, including the victim, is partly culpable

If maintenance was being carried out why was there even power to it in the first place?

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: Premium WordPress Themes | Thanks to Themes Gallery, Bromoney and Wordpress Themes