HSE Fines Reflex Flexible Packaging £60,000 Over Unguarded Laminator Rollers

The Birmingham Magistrates' Court sentence on 10 August 2026 reinforces existing occupational health and safety duties for manufacturers across packaging, printing, converting and other roller-based processes.

The employee was using a rag to clean the laminator when it was caught by the rollers, pulling the worker's hand into the nip point. The injury required two operations and four nights in hospital. HSE found that a fixed guard was missing, leaving access to the dangerous rollers.

HSE Found Guarding And Cleaning Controls Were Inadequate

The regulator said the company's risk assessment and safe system of work were unsuitable and insufficient. Cleaning had not been properly assessed, and instructions for using the foot pedal did not adequately control the task.

These findings matter because cleaning, adjustment and fault-clearing are foreseeable production activities, not exceptional events that sit outside normal risk assessment.

Reflex Flexible Packaging pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER). That provision requires employers to take effective measures to prevent access to dangerous machinery parts or stop their movement before any person enters a danger zone.

The company was ordered to pay £4,464 in costs in addition to the fine.

The Prosecution Does Not Create A New Rule

PUWER was already binding before the incident and remains unchanged. The new trigger is the completed prosecution and HSE's detailed account of how it applied the duty to laminator cleaning.

HSE emphasised that engineering controls, including fixed guarding, take priority and that risk assessments must cover cleaning, maintenance and repair.

The sentence was the company's second in less than a year. In November 2025 it was fined £277,500 following a separate fatal incident. Repeat enforcement can intensify regulatory and reputational exposure even where cases concern different machinery or sites.

A machine may appear guarded during production yet remain unsafe if cleaning requires removal, bypass or reach-around access. Sites should review each operating mode and intervention, including who authorises guard removal, how stored and powered energy is isolated, and whether controls default to a safe state when a foot pedal or inching mode is used.

What Machinery Operators Should Do Now

Manufacturers should inspect laminators and other machinery for accessible nip points, verify fixed and interlocked guards, and observe actual cleaning practices.

Risk assessments and safe systems should name the task, isolation steps, permitted tools and supervision. Employers should train workers on stop and isolation controls, record defects, and prevent production pressures from normalising workarounds.

Summary

The £60,000 fine confirms existing PUWER duties rather than creating a new rule. Manufacturers should treat cleaning as a normal operating mode and verify that guarding, isolation, task controls and worker practice prevent access to dangerous rollers.