Lawsuit Settlement Emphasises Importance of Regulations on Vibrations at Work
Keith Rowley, a worker who was left debilitated due to the use of vibrating tools at work, recently received a sizeable amount of £10,000 in an out-of-court settlement. He began to suffer from the condition called Hand Arm Vibration Syndrome (HAVS), which is also referred to as Vibration White Finger, following the continued use of vibrating tools while performing his job as a fitter.
The employer, General Kinematics Ltd., chose to settle out of court rather then admit liability once they were made aware of the fact that Mr. Rowley’s union, the GMB, had given instructions to Thompsons Solicitors to seek compensation from the court for his injury.
HAVS, an industrial disease that afflicts many workers using hand-held vibrating power tools on a long-term basis, forces victims to wear gloves during cold weather and live with a constant pain in their hands. Symptoms vary, but most often include an inability to feel one’s fingertips, the skin loses its colour, and there is pain in the arms and fingers.
GMB’s Legal Administrator, Andrea Austin, stated that many of the union’s members, working in a variety of industries using power tools, faced the risk of suffering from HAVS. This condition can be extremely disabling, and lowers the quality of a worker’s life, affecting him both professionally and personally.
Employers are required by the Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 to assess and take preventive action against the risk of an injury or an ailment to workers due to the use of vibrating tools at the workplace. It’s essential for employers to keep themselves up to date with health and safety developments to avoid potential legal action from employers, this can be achieved by taking an IOSH Health and Safety course from Workplace Law Training.
Speaking for Thompsons Solicitors, Martin Fell remarked that though many workers were resigned to HAVS as a consequence of their work, they do not realise that it has a major effect on their lives. They ought to be safeguarded against the risk of developing the condition by their employer, and a lack of protective mechanisms should entitle them to recover compensation from the company.
