New Year - Resolutions?

We are moving into (yet another) New Year.

Many people make resolutions to change - their lifestyle, attitude, eating habits, etc. Do businesses? Do the people who run businesses?

This year, why not make a resolution to "do safety better". I do not mean to spend unnecessary sums of money or to carry out unnecessary training or risk assessments. I mean "to think about safety and make some simple, low cost changes for the better".

Some simple starters?

Housekeeping standards - about a third of workplace accidents result from slips, trips and falls and about half of these result from poor housekeeping.

Fire Safety - Check exit routes, check emergency lighting, check the fire alarm, do a fire drill, update your fire safety risk assessment, etc

Vehicle movements - review the separation between people and vehicles - people come off really badly when it goes wrong!

Focus - as with all areas that are important to your business, focus your efforts onto those things that will make a big difference for a low cost and for minimal effort. Housekeeping is a nice, easy big hit. It costs little and can reduce the instances of slips, trips and falls and it can reduce the likelihood of a fire.

Records - consider which records are most important to the management of health and safety and make it ease to keep these up to date.

Get involved - walk round the premises and view the operation regularly. Put right those things that do not look right on the walk round or, even better, get those people who should already have addressed these issues to put them right! Truly management by walking about.

Employer without Insurance

A Bradford takeaway owner has been fined for failing to insure his staff against work-related injuries and illnesses. The owner was approached by the HSE on two occasions and asked to provide his employers' liability insurance certificate and failed to do so on both occasions. The owner also fails to turn up for a formal interview and later failed to turn up to court.

He was found guilty of breaching Section 1(1) of the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 and fined £2,500 for failing to insure his employees against injury arising from their work. He faces a further £1,000 penalty for failing to producing an insurance certificate and was also ordered to pay full costs of over £2,500

The HSE inspecton commented:

It's wholly unacceptable for employers not to arrange insurance to cover their employees for incidents or illnesses that can occur because of their work ... Employers who turn a blind eye to this are playing a dangerous game of chance and whenever HSE becomes aware this is happening, we will not hesitate to take enforcement action."

Health, Safety and morality

Health and safety is an area that all companies must maintain, but what is it that obliges us to do so? Reasons could be legal, professional, financial, social or moral to name a few. What are the moral reasons for upholding a high standard of health and safety in the workplace? I shall endeavour to name a few reasons why businesses should be concerned with this aspect of health and safety.
From a Kantian perspective, we all have duties which we ought to act upon. Regarding health and safety we have a duty not to harm others, to prevent unnecessary risks and not to kill. Poor health and safety can result in both minor and major injuries and sometimes even death. We have a duty to protect the wellbeing of others and poor health and safety maintenance ignores this duty; by not upholding a safe work environment, the employer is acting immorally. Thus, because we ought to protect others from unnecessary harm and remain moral, we ought to endorse high standards of health and safety in the workplace.
The Bible teaches ‘love your neighbour as you love yourself’. Although limited by the field of religion, this statement still holds true in a secular environment - we should treat others in a way we would want to be treated. If we take a bad employer who cuts corners and exposes his staff to dangerous conditions, would he want to be treated in this manner? Imagine an employee suffered severe acid burns and was blinded due to poor upkeep of the work environment and subsequently could not work again. This would be the fault of the employer for not accounting for risks and doing his best to provide a safe environment. Would they really want to suffer a similar fate as a result of their negligence? One would assume not, thus in regards to our own self interest as well as the welfare of others around us, good quality health and safety is a must.
Taking on a utilitarian perspective, the ethic is to provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number; once again, our concern here is wellbeing. Poor workplace maintenance could lead to many hazards- trips, spills, electrical, chemical and mechanical. A worker who is constantly under at the mercy of his environment is not a happy worker. Thus, for the greatest happiness of the workers, a safe work environment should be provided. Regarding the employer, poor health and safety standards affect them also. Dangerous conditions could result in severe injury. Imagine an employee was injured at work and an inquiry showed it to be due to the negligence of the manager. Penalties would be enforced, be they fines, sentences or loss of licence. The potential impact is on the employer as well as the employee. Thus, in order to prevent both parties suffering, it would be in the best interests of everyone’s wellbeing to uphold a safe workplace.
To conclude, all three points made point strongly to wellbeing, be it wellbeing of the employer or employees. Health and safety is a moral requirement in any field of work in order to maintain a constant sense of safety and security.

Visit our website

Avoid driving in adverse weather conditions

You would be wella advised not to drive in the current poor weather (snow, ice, etc) unless your journey is necessary. If you do need to drive, I'd advise you to have a look at the direct.gov.uk website:

Fall from height after contact with electricity

After suffering an electric shock at one of the UK's largest timber merchants, a subcontractor fell more than five metres from a crane ladder. The mechanical fitter suffered a several injuries, including a broken vertebra as a result of the incident.

The Cambridge-based building and timber merchants was prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after the incident, which happened in September 2008. The fitter was employed by an Engineering Company that had been subcontracted to fix an overhead crane system at the timber engineering workshop in Sudbury, Suffolk. He was climbing a ladder to access the crane when he made contact with a live conductor, which caused him to fall 18ft. He landed on the concrete floor, sustaining a fractured vertebra, a broken ankle, smashed heel, and burns to his hands.

The timber merchants admitted breaching Regulation 4(3) of the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 - failing to ensure work was carried out in such a manner as to not give rise to danger. The firm was fined £5,000 (with £4,344.70 costs).

The HSE Inspector said:

It is essential for companies to ensure that work undertaken on their behalf by subcontractors is properly managed and safe systems of work agreed prior to work commencing. ... have admitted that the task was handed over to Mr Minor without discussion as to the way it was to be undertaken or any precautions that may be needed prior to it being started.

Fall from height - Roofing Contractor

A roofing contractor from East London suffered a broken back after falling through the skylight of a building extension. Investigation by the HSE revealed that safety procedures had been overlooked. The worker fell while removing tarpaulin from the one-storey roof extension at a flat in South West London back in December 2006. The tarpaulin had been put in place to provide the ground floor of the flat with weather protection. The worker was removing this when the tarpaulin snagged. The man stepped on some insulating board that had been laid across the skylight, which gave way under his weight. He fell over three metres to the concrete floor below.

The injured persons employer pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 6 (3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 and was fined £10,000, with costs of £7,000.

The injured worker suffered a broken back as a result of the fall and can now only walk short distances and needs to use a walking stick. The injured worker's condition will not improve and he will not be able to return to work in the construction industry.

Speaking after the sentence, the injured man showed, again, how such injuries destroys lives:

Prior to the incident, I had an active life and enjoyed numerous outdoor activities, which I can no longer pursue. I no longer work as a result of my injuries. The incident has effectively turned my life upside down. I suffer terrible flashbacks and am currently on medication.

The HSE Inspector commented:

The impact on this man's life has been immeasurable. This incident could easily have been avoided, and illustrates there is no room for complacency even when working on small sites. Work at height is the single largest safety hazard on construction sites and needs to be properly managed.

Fall from height fatality costs BT nearly half a million Pounds

British Telecommunications Plc (BT) has been fined £300,000 following the death of a worker who fell from height. The 52 year old power construction engineer fell from a ladder while carrying out installation works and suffered fatal head injuries. the incident occurred at London's Canonbury Telephone Exchange on 27 October 2006.

BT was prosecuted after an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The Crown Court heard that the worker was installing distribution boards and running cabling as part of his work and that he would have been working at a height of more than four metres. He fell from a nine-step wooden ladder, sustaining a serious head injury and he died 18 days later.

The HSE investigation found a number of issues including a failure to ensure the work at height was properly planned. they also found that the worker was provided with suitable access equipment for work at height. Two wooden ladders found at the scene had not been subject to an annual inspection, contrary to BT's own health and safety policy. BT were found guilty of breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 at a previous hearing. Today, they were fined £300,000 and were ordered to pay costs of £196,150

The HSE inspector, said:

The fact that this incident was entirely avoidable makes Mr Askew's death all the more tragic.

The dangers posed by work at height are well known, yet BT failed to create the conditions to ensure this task was carried out safely and the appropriate access equipment was used.

Employers have a responsibility to ensure that work at height is properly planned and organised.

Showing the human suffering side of workplace safety, the wife of the worker killed in this incident said:

I spent over 30 happy, irreplaceable years with my husband. He was a remarkable father and husband. What do I have to look forward to now? My husband was my past and I thought he was my future.

I feel sad my husband will never see two of his children get married. Most of all I feel sad that I see such sadness in my children's eyes when they talk of their father.

I feel sad that my husband worked all his life and never got the chance to retire and enjoy the life he was working so hard towards.

I share a massive disappointment that this happened within a workforce of such a large company and where the safety of every employee should have been assured.

Note:

Sadly, falls from height remain the most common cause of workplace fatality. In the accident statistics for the period of 2008 - 2009 there were 35 fatalities, 4654 major injuries and a further 7065 injuries that caused the injured person to be off work for over three days or more, due to a fall from height.

BT to Appeal - it is understood that BT are to appeal against the fine in this case. More on this later.