At last, a training solution to meet your business needs which provides:
• a wide range of effective health and safety training
• access when and where you want
• a competitive price
• management control
• certificates with your own Company logo
Plus Safety is pleased to announce the launch of our new on-line training website http://www.plustraining.co.uk to provide you with an on-line training resource to meet your health and safety training needs. To celebrate the launch of our new website we are offering to waive the one-off account set-up fee of £75 for Companies registering for training before 31st May 2011. Take advantage of this offer and Register Now quoting PROM0511.
Our inter-active training courses have proved extremely successful with our clients in terms of effectiveness, cost and flexibility. We have 26 courses in total and for only £48 +vat per employee you have access to ALL 26 courses, for 24hrs a day, 7 days a week, for a full 12 months. Our management system allows you to control who does what and provides for monitoring of your e-learners.
Asbestos in the Workplace
Confined Space Awareness
Working with Display Screen Equipment
Electricity at Work Regulations
Heat Stress at Work
Introduction to COSHH
Introduction to P.P.E.
Management of Health & Safety at Work
Noise at Work
Safe Manual Handling
Safe Working at Heights
Safety Signs Awareness
Safety Signs & Signals Regulations
Working with flammable liquids and powder
Visit http://www.plustraining.co.uk for more information on the courses, and see a demonstration for yourself. We’re sure you’ll like what you see! If you prefer to speak to someone, you may telephone Sue or Eric on 0845 5197061, who will be happy to help.
A Gloucestershire firm has been fined £385,000 after a man was killed when a trench collapsed on him.
Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings became the first firm convicted under new corporate manslaughter legislation after the death of Alexander Wright.
A jury at Winchester Crown Court found Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings guilty of failing to ensure his safety.
Geologist Mr Wright was taking soil samples for a housing development in the 12.6ft (3.8m) pit, which was not supported by timbers, when it caved in.
The company had denied corporate manslaughter. No-one was in the dock for the three-week trial.
The prosecution was the first under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007.
Mr. Grimes, partner at law firm Kingsley Napley, said that previously for a corporate manslaughter prosecution to succeed “it was necessary to secure a conviction against a senior individual within the company”.
“Under the new act this principle is replaced by a requirement for the organisation’s activities to have caused the death in a way that falls far below what could reasonably be expected of that company,” he said.
The judge, Mr Justice Field, said the company, which was described in court as being in a “parlous financial state”, could pay the fine over 10 years at £38,500 a year.
He said the fine marked the gravity of the crime and the deterrent effect it would have on companies to adhere to health and safety guidance.
Mr Wright was taking soil samples in the pit when it caved in He said a larger fine would cause the small scale company to be liquidated, and four people would lose their jobs.
“It may well be that the fine in the terms of its payment will put this company into liquidation. If that is the case it’s unfortunate but unavoidable but it’s a consequence of the serious breach,” he said.
The court was told that the company’s director Peter Eaton, 61, is seriously ill with cancer and has months to live.
He was unable to stand trial on a manslaughter charge but the jury was told to assess his conduct in reaching a verdict.
Mr Justice Field said that Mr Eaton was, in substance, the company.
He said Mr Eaton knew of a rule dating back to 1981 which said that pits more than 1.2m (4ft) deep should be supported due to the dangers of collapse and death.
The judge said Mr Eaton ignored the rule and instead decided his knowledge and that of his assistants should be used to see if it was safe to enter a pit.
“This approach to trial pitting was extremely irresponsible,” the judge said.
“Peter Eaton thought he knew better. In this he was gravely and culpably mistaken.”
The judge said a former employee had raised concerns about trial pitting with the Health and Safety Executive in 2005.
The executive contacted Mr Eaton, who said he would support the pits but did not.
Moral of this story: Ignore your responsibilities at your peril!