Latest posts:
Rate this!
Pasc Ruggiero, CFIOSH, FRSH
Member - 39 posts
The HSE repeatedly pay lip service to Safety Reps. They have produced reports which demonstrate that a 50% reduction in accidents has been found when comparing similar employers, with and without EFFECTIVE worker consultation.
The HSE should be asked why have they never prosecuted under the 1977 and 1996 regulations and the additional provisions in the CDM Regs 2007(&1994)? Yes over 30 years of un-enforced legislation under a spectrum of governments/parties!!
Rate this!
Pasc Ruggiero, CFIOSH, FRSH
Member - 39 posts
Shane,
There is something seriously wrong with a management culture that turns away free assistance! However, Safety Representatives cannot be assigned any “responsibilities” in addition to their normal employee role. They can undertake agreed “duties” but their main function is “consultation”. The 1977 and 1996 regulations apply. The former is only mandatory where unions appoint Safety Reps. However, best practice is to follow HSE guide L87.
Employees are generally only responsible for matters under there control (as this effects others).
Rate this!
Pasc Ruggiero, CFIOSH, FRSH
Member - 39 posts
David,
I agree completely and ANYONE can see the same (and more) transgressions throughout the UK. Enforcement notices just ‘say’ to the law breaker ‘we have caught you, but we are not going to penalise you and all you are required to do is what you should have been doing all along’. Others see this and conclude that they need not comply until they are caught. I also do not understand why HSE draw attention, in press releases, to a notice issued by them prior to a fatality. In many cases they could have taken a prosecution and this also makes them liable (morally only because of the protection afforded to them in the HSWA74!).
According to TUC Risks Bulletin 357 (24 May ’08), the HSE under spent by £12M in 07/08. We should ask why they did not “want” more inspectors – knowing how poor compliance is. What we “need” is more prosecutions. This can be achieved using existing resources which should be diverted from PR to IN DEPTH unannounced inspections.
The recent announcement to employ more inspector will not change anything without a change of culture/direction.
Rate this!
Pasc Ruggiero, CFIOSH, FRSH
Member - 39 posts
If North West Aerosols is a small firm, the question arises – why haven’t the HSE taken a prosecution against the directors under s37 HSWA74?? This would also apply in any organisation where 'the controling mind' can be established.
Rate this!
Pasc Ruggiero, CFIOSH, FRSH
Member - 39 posts
Surely this is no different to a doctor refusing to carry out an abortion for moral/religious reasons.
Rate this!
Pasc Ruggiero, CFIOSH, FRSH
Member - 39 posts
Ken, I have now read your comments and agree with everything you say. I "GUESS" that you could include major local authorities who regularly undertake domestic dwelling etc refurbishment work.
Rate this!
Pasc Ruggiero, CFIOSH, FRSH
Member - 39 posts
Clearly the last sentence (Type 2 survey) is meant to apply where pre-demolition/ refurbishment is NOT taking place.
Rate this!
Pasc Ruggiero, CFIOSH, FRSH
Member - 39 posts
The accountability of the HSE to the HSC will now be lost and we will no longer see the former reigned-in by the latter. This outweighs the perceived advantages in the amalgamation.
Rate this!
Pasc Ruggiero, CFIOSH, FRSH
Member - 39 posts
For at least the last 10 years, officials knew of the inadequate standards and a buyer didn’t make it his business to ask about this - public enquiry.
What is the point in having these public servants if they don’t of their job? They should now be held to account - starting near the top and working down.
Rate this!
Pasc Ruggiero, CFIOSH, FRSH
Member - 39 posts
Graham,
The “other legislation” allows the manufacturer to provide equipment (for DIY or employed work) at voltages greater than 110V.
There is no requirement in the CDM Regulations regarding ”operation and use”. Maintenance duties are very limited and does not apply to DIY. If you disagree, please cite the Regulation(s) that apply. I have given a more detailed response to CDM v operation/use on 21 February 2008.
Rate this!
Pasc Ruggiero, CFIOSH, FRSH
Member - 39 posts
Sorry, I seem to have got out of step. My posting @1218h was in response to someone...@1123h.
I would now add: Of course, that the HSWA74, legal requirement for risk assessments etc does not apply to DIY work.
Rate this!
Pasc Ruggiero, CFIOSH, FRSH
Member - 39 posts
I believe the query refers to employment.
HSE: HSG107 states “nearly a quarter of all reportable electrical accidents involve portable equipment. The majority of these accidents result in electric shock….”
The DIY sector is probably worse!
Lower voltages are inherently safer.
I think everyone has acknowledged that the environment (risk) is important e.g 400kV overhead lines are acceptable.
Rate this!
Pasc Ruggiero, CFIOSH, FRSH
Member - 39 posts
More ‘muddy waters’. A person may not be classed as an employee for employment, tax and insurance purposes but may still be an employee for health and safety purposes! This is a complex area but in simple terms if an employer controls this person as if he were an employee, then the requirements of section 2, HSWA74 etc will apply. This is very often the case in construction work.
If the employer - employee relationship doesn’t hold, then s3, HSWA 74 (duties to “others”) will apply and very often, in practice makes little difference to responsibilities to this person. However, this may absolve the employer in eg providing PPE!
Rate this!
Pasc Ruggiero, CFIOSH, FRSH
Member - 39 posts
There is absolutely no need to display the “statement” to the general policy produced pursuant to s2(3) of the HSWA 74 (usually the first page of the document signed by the MD or equivalent). This normally says that ‘we will comply with the law …….. reduce risks ……. etc. The presence or otherwise of this statement makes no difference other than it may show the ‘first shoots’ of management commitment. What really matters is the “arrangements” and DETAILED responsibilities contained in the remainder of the document; and management demonstrate by ACTION that they are committed to the policy(s).
Far better to display a current index of policies as a REMINDER.
Employers are required to train employees in each of their policies and check their UNDERSTANDING. A certified record of this helps. Appropriate documents (whatever medium) must be available to those employees who need to know.
Did the Assessor indicate whether or not the document(s) were adequate!
Rate this!
Pasc Ruggiero, CFIOSH, FRSH
Member - 39 posts
The safer of the two options is easy to resolve. Would you rather connect your body to 55V or 240V? (Don’t try!). You will get more than FOUR times the current (which is what kills) flowing through you with a 240V supply. RCDs/RCCBs are electro-mechanical devices. These fail and can be abused(not 100% reliable) and hence, require testing/maintenance. Also, if you are well insulated from earth/ground and you connect yourself between LIVE and NEUTRAL, the RCCB will ‘see’ you as a load e.g. a lamp, and is likely NOT to operate.
There isn’t a strict legal requirement to use 110V CTE (centre tapped earth) on a construction site but the conditions normally found in these environments usually only justify the use of voltages above this if special equipment is involved e.g. electric welding or some dry finishing trades. The applicable legislation, in addition to risk assessment, is Electricity @WR 89 and PUWER 98. HSE:HSG 141 (1995 and still valid!) - Electrical Safety on Construction Sites, gives further details. The use of 110V or less is well established on building sites other than some non UK companies or very small contractors. This, of course, does not provide justification.
Where conditions are similar or worse eg metal fabrication then the use of 110V or SAFER will apply.
PS: 55V and less can result in a fatality.
Rate this!
Pasc Ruggiero, CFIOSH, FRSH
Member - 39 posts
Today(15 Mar 08) I received TUC Risks Bulletin 347 which refers to a new HSE DSE micro site - http://www.hse.gov.uk/msd/dse/index.htm. This contains a ‘safety rep’ version of the hard copy checklists I mentioned. These are all significantly identical and my concerns remain unchanged. However, the new site does reaffirm the need for a competent person to review input from users, which is reassuring.
I don’t see the point in the quasi-duplication!
Rate this!
Pasc Ruggiero, CFIOSH, FRSH
Member - 39 posts
I agree that the Corporate Manslaughter Act should have simplified holding managers directly to account. However, EXISTING law includes for life imprisonment. This has been emphasised in the IoD guidance on the new Act (HSE indg417). Extracts of this are as follows:
“If a health and safety offence is committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the organisation, then that person (as well as the organisation) can be prosecuted under section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
Recent case law has confirmed that directors cannot avoid a charge of neglect under section 37 by arranging their organisation’s business so as to leave them ignorant of circumstances which would trigger their obligation to address health and safety breaches.
Those found guilty are liable for fines and, in some cases, imprisonment. In addition, the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, section 2(1), empowers the court to disqualify an individual convicted of an offence in connection with the management of a company. This includes health and safety offences. This power is exercised at the discretion of the court; it requires NO ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION OR EVIDENCE. Individual directors are also potentially liable for other related offences, such as the common law offence of gross negligence manslaughter. Under the common law, gross negligence manslaughter is proved when individual officers of a company (directors or business owners) by their own grossly negligent behaviour cause death. This offence is punishable by a maximum of LIFE IMPRISONMENT.”
After April it will be easier to convict an organisation of manslaughter. This will then allow section 37 to ‘kick-in’ against individuals.
Rate this!
Pasc Ruggiero, CFIOSH, FRSH
Member - 39 posts
In the wrong (untrained) hands the incomplete HSE checklist in L26 & HSG90 (I am not aware of a Web equivalent) can be less than useless. The DSE Regulations require EMPLOYERS to assess the risk to a PERSON from EACH workstation they use ………. This must take account of any relevant prevailing ailments. Hence, you can have a situation where VDU luminaires are required for one person but not another - both may be undertaking identical tasks.
By CAREFULLY reading the note at the start of the HSE Checklist you will see that this only covers the workstation and the work environment! Unless each user is trained to a high standard (to undertake these assessments) an employer cannot rely on them. How many would recognise their (embedded) inadequate workstation layout; poor posture; excessive direct, reflective and/or veiling reflections; excessive luminance ratios between the screen and background; inadequate illuminance; etc. If users complete the HSE Checklist (or an in-house versions) then these should be critically reviewed by a competent person. The extent of the review should be significantly effected by the results of the corresponding health questionnaire. This may necessitate repeating some of the assessments.
I would not deny anyone who works from hard copies, the use of a FULLY adjustable document holder. You can buy a ‘boat-load’ of these for the cost of DEFENDING an RSI claim! Generally, I have found that user will try and justify the status quo.
Why stop at DSE self assessment? You could get each person to assess ALL risks to themselves and those they impost on others e.g. manual handling, working at height, electricity (including portable appliance), stress, COSHH (including sharps), etc. Clearly, typical employees can only contribute to the process. For some reason, a number of employers regard DSE as ‘different’.
Don’t get me wrong, employees involved in a task can make a valuable CONTRIBUTION to all assessments and should be encouraged to do this. Limitations (in us all) should be unequivocally acknowledged.
Both HSE documents include the checklist and each cost nearly £9. L26 also includes the Regulations and detailed guidance. By reference to the “Schedule” etc in the Regulations it can be seen that considerations are missing from the checklist e.g. software that facilitates quantitive or qualitative monitoring. A user-friendly/complete questionnaire will also identify who will implement the remedial measures and by when. I also make provision for a copy to be provided to the user and a record made that they understand the output of this process.
Rate this!
Pasc Ruggiero, CFIOSH, FRSH
Member - 39 posts
Alan,
I agree with you. However, the problem is not confined to maintenance, construction or manufacturing for that matter - it’s widespread. Because of the fluid nature and propensity to engage self-employed people in construction, this sector is somewhat worst.
I still maintain that employers have had more than their due of “encouragement” and that enforcement is the only cure.
In the meantime, clients continue to be responsible for engaging “competent contractors” (not restricted to construction). A contractor cannot achieve this status if HE engages untrained supervisors, operatives, etc. On your own it is an uphill struggle. But you could give notice to your contractors that you are introducing rigorous (defined) competency assessment criteria, say in 6 months. You may need to remove organisations from the select list! Unless you see this through, you will not be taken seriously by others and standards will regress to (current?) levels.
Good Luck!!
Rate this!
Pasc Ruggiero, CFIOSH, FRSH
Member - 39 posts
This appears to be news to the HSE. If they listened to H&S professionals involved in Construction (not just refurbishment!!) they would have addressed the corrective measure sooner - firstly prosecution, secondly prohibition (stop work) notice, thirdly prohibition notice! I cant think of the 4th action they should take.
It’s good to see IOSH taking a firm (necessary) line on corporate manslaughter penalties - another Workplace Law article today
0 (0)
