Amputation, the Accident Register and an Inspector's Visit
At a metal-fabrication company in Ikeja, a press-brake operator's right hand is caught between the upper tool and the die. Two fingertips are amputated. He is treated at a private hospital and returns to light duties after two days. The supervisor records the event in the production log but not in the accident register, saying, 'He came back, so it is not serious.' The guard on the press brake had been removed three weeks earlier because it slowed production, and the pre-use check sheet is signed daily by the same operator. When a factory inspector arrives unannounced, the managing director offers to 'sort out transport' and asks the HSE officer to keep the matter 'in-house' until the company's lawyer advises. The company has 42 workers, an HSE policy signed two years ago and no functioning safety committee. The injured worker is worried about losing his job if he gives a statement.
1. Is the injury reportable, and what should the HSE officer do first?
Read the worked answer
The injury should be treated as serious. The fact that the worker returned to light duties after two days does not make an amputation trivial, and reportability should not be decided by the supervisor's production log. The HSE officer's first duties are to make sure the worker receives continuing medical care, preserve the scene and the press-brake guard evidence, and open an accident-register entry with the date, time, injury, machine and witnesses. The officer should then check the current requirements under the Factories Act and the Employees' Compensation Act 2010 and notify the Factory Inspectorate and the compensation authority or insurer within the required time. It is safer to make a prompt report and correct it later than to conceal a lost-time injury. The officer should cooperate truthfully with the inspector, provide the records requested and avoid promising confidentiality to the worker that cannot be kept.
2. How should the HSE officer respond to the MD's request to keep the matter in-house and the offer to 'sort out transport'?
Read the worked answer
The officer should decline clearly and explain why. Concealing a workplace injury and offering money to an inspector can expose the company and the individual to criminal or regulatory action, damage the investigation and worsen the worker's compensation position. The officer's professional duty is to the law and to the injured person, not to the MD's preferred narrative. The right response is to say that the company will cooperate fully, provide the accident records and the machine history, and make the worker available for a statement if he consents. If the MD persists, the officer should document the instruction and escalate through the company's legal/compliance channel or the relevant professional body. The worker should be reassured that he is protected from retaliation and given access to the compensation process. An internal investigation can run in parallel with the external report, but it must not replace it.
3. What root causes and corrective actions should the investigation address?
Read the worked answer
The immediate cause was exposure at the press brake, but the root causes are the removed guard, production pressure that made removal acceptable, a pre-use check signed by the operator himself, and no functioning safety committee. Corrective actions: restore and interlock the guard, fit presence-sensing or two-hand control where the risk assessment requires it, and lock off the machine pending repair. Change the pre-use check so a second person verifies safeguarding, and audit it. Train operators and supervisors on the hierarchy of control and stop-work authority. Establish a safety committee with worker representation, investigate why the guard was removed, and review production targets. Protect the injured worker from retaliation and ensure compensation and return-to-work support. Follow up with a verification date and record the closure evidence.