This is a five minute podcast covering some important aspects of fire safety: introducing the duties of the "Responsible Person" and the talking about what we can all do within our premises to assist with fire safety.
Link to download the Podcast
Showing posts with label Worker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Worker. Show all posts
Sunday, 30 October 2011
Thursday, 10 June 2010
Hazardous substances or COSHH Cases
Case 1
In January this year, a bearings company was fined £20,000 (with costs of £15,000) following prosecution for exposing the workforce to hazardous substances in the form of metalworking fluids as a mist. The company was issued with an Improvement Notice, following an HSE visit in April 2007, to provide its workforce with adequate face protection, and to install adequate control measures on six machines, to prevent employees coming into direct contact with the mist. Inspectors returned in December 2007 and undertook a full safety audit across the whole site. Although the company complied with the Improvement Notice (and installed extractors on each machine) a subsequent inspection identified that the problem was more widespread and 100 other machines were also emitting metalworking fluid. Over the last five years there have been 15 reported cases of respiratory ill health (occupational asthma and extrinsic allergic alveolitis) from workers at the factory. This represents the second largest exposure of its kind in the UK at a single company.
Case 2
The UK's largest domestic manufacturer of energy and telecommunications cables and systems to service home and export markets was fined £27,500 and ordered to pay £10,700 costs, at Southampton Crown Court in September 2009. A factory worker was left with permanent disabilities and has been forced to retire on medical grounds at the age of 48 after contracting a severe form of dermatitis at his workplace. The company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 6(1)(a), 7(1), and 7(3) of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002. The site produced high-voltage cables, which contained paper insulation that was soaked in dodecylbenzene oil. As part of the quality testing, the worker cut sections out of the cables and the oil regularly came into contact with his skin. The worker was not provided with suitable personal protective equipment and suffered skin irritations across large parts of his body. As a result of the illness he has been left with permanent scarring and has to avoid contact with a large number of substances that cause further skin irritation.
In January this year, a bearings company was fined £20,000 (with costs of £15,000) following prosecution for exposing the workforce to hazardous substances in the form of metalworking fluids as a mist. The company was issued with an Improvement Notice, following an HSE visit in April 2007, to provide its workforce with adequate face protection, and to install adequate control measures on six machines, to prevent employees coming into direct contact with the mist. Inspectors returned in December 2007 and undertook a full safety audit across the whole site. Although the company complied with the Improvement Notice (and installed extractors on each machine) a subsequent inspection identified that the problem was more widespread and 100 other machines were also emitting metalworking fluid. Over the last five years there have been 15 reported cases of respiratory ill health (occupational asthma and extrinsic allergic alveolitis) from workers at the factory. This represents the second largest exposure of its kind in the UK at a single company.
Case 2
The UK's largest domestic manufacturer of energy and telecommunications cables and systems to service home and export markets was fined £27,500 and ordered to pay £10,700 costs, at Southampton Crown Court in September 2009. A factory worker was left with permanent disabilities and has been forced to retire on medical grounds at the age of 48 after contracting a severe form of dermatitis at his workplace. The company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 6(1)(a), 7(1), and 7(3) of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002. The site produced high-voltage cables, which contained paper insulation that was soaked in dodecylbenzene oil. As part of the quality testing, the worker cut sections out of the cables and the oil regularly came into contact with his skin. The worker was not provided with suitable personal protective equipment and suffered skin irritations across large parts of his body. As a result of the illness he has been left with permanent scarring and has to avoid contact with a large number of substances that cause further skin irritation.
Confined spaces - A couple of cases
Case 1
A silo cleaning company was fined £15,000 each of two breaches of the Confined Spaces Regulations 1997 (with costs of £15,000) after pleading guilty to breaching Regulations 4(2) (failing to provide a safe system of work) and 5(1) (insufficient emergency arrangements). A worker who had not been trained in confined-space access and egress, nor provided with adequate equipment, died of heat exhaustion inside a feed silo.
Case 2
A metal-treatment company has been fined £533,000 (with costs of £200,000) following a double fatality at its manufacturing plant. The Crown Court heard that a works manager and a maintenance manager died of asphyxiation and were found unconscious on stairs leading to a concrete-lined pit after argon gas had leaked from a large pressure vessel. Following a number of false alarms, the pit’s oxygen alarm system had been silenced. This was coupled to the fact that the ventilation system was also not in operation after the machine had lost power during a power cut. The power cut happened a month prior to the incident and had not been switched back on. The HSE inspector commented “... the risks from confined spaces and asphyxiation due to the presence of argon were well-known to the company, which had experienced of a similar double fatality. Despite this warning the company failed to undertake a proper risk assessment for entry into the confined space. Although they had implemented a safe system of work and permit-to-work procedure, they had not properly trained employees in their use, or ensured that these systems and procedures were being followed through their auditing procedure.”
If you need help to manage your Health and Safety, please contact us via our website
A silo cleaning company was fined £15,000 each of two breaches of the Confined Spaces Regulations 1997 (with costs of £15,000) after pleading guilty to breaching Regulations 4(2) (failing to provide a safe system of work) and 5(1) (insufficient emergency arrangements). A worker who had not been trained in confined-space access and egress, nor provided with adequate equipment, died of heat exhaustion inside a feed silo.
Case 2
A metal-treatment company has been fined £533,000 (with costs of £200,000) following a double fatality at its manufacturing plant. The Crown Court heard that a works manager and a maintenance manager died of asphyxiation and were found unconscious on stairs leading to a concrete-lined pit after argon gas had leaked from a large pressure vessel. Following a number of false alarms, the pit’s oxygen alarm system had been silenced. This was coupled to the fact that the ventilation system was also not in operation after the machine had lost power during a power cut. The power cut happened a month prior to the incident and had not been switched back on. The HSE inspector commented “... the risks from confined spaces and asphyxiation due to the presence of argon were well-known to the company, which had experienced of a similar double fatality. Despite this warning the company failed to undertake a proper risk assessment for entry into the confined space. Although they had implemented a safe system of work and permit-to-work procedure, they had not properly trained employees in their use, or ensured that these systems and procedures were being followed through their auditing procedure.”
If you need help to manage your Health and Safety, please contact us via our website
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
Contractor fined £45,000 after lift engineer is crushed to death
A Kent-based lift company has been fined following health and safety failings which led to a self-employed lift engineer being crushed to death. The company was prosecuted following an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after an employee died while completing the installation of a new lift at a site near Oxford Street in Central London.
On 6 December 2005, the installer was working alone on the lift's wiring while standing on the roof of the lift car at an office building in London.
The cable of a control used to move the lift was severed when it became wrapped around a bolt protruding from the lift shaft wall. This led to a rogue command being sent to the lift's controller causing the lift to start moving upwards.
The installer became trapped between the top of the lift car and the top of the doorway as it travelled upwards, suffering fatal crush injuries.
Neither installer, nor his assistant, had experience of installing the type of lift control system being fitted at the site.
The Old Bailey heard the main contractor carrying out the work was had sub-contracted the work to a specialist lift engineer it had worked with previously. However, due to delays the sub-contractor had to leave the job uncompleted.
The job was then sub-contracted the completion and testing of the lift to a second sub-contractor who employed the installer to undertake the final phases of work.
The company pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined a total of £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £25,000. The company has now stopped trading and has limited financial resources.
A HSE Inspector commented upon the case:
On 6 December 2005, the installer was working alone on the lift's wiring while standing on the roof of the lift car at an office building in London.
The cable of a control used to move the lift was severed when it became wrapped around a bolt protruding from the lift shaft wall. This led to a rogue command being sent to the lift's controller causing the lift to start moving upwards.
The installer became trapped between the top of the lift car and the top of the doorway as it travelled upwards, suffering fatal crush injuries.
Neither installer, nor his assistant, had experience of installing the type of lift control system being fitted at the site.
The Old Bailey heard the main contractor carrying out the work was had sub-contracted the work to a specialist lift engineer it had worked with previously. However, due to delays the sub-contractor had to leave the job uncompleted.
The job was then sub-contracted the completion and testing of the lift to a second sub-contractor who employed the installer to undertake the final phases of work.
The company pleaded guilty to breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined a total of £20,000 and ordered to pay costs of £25,000. The company has now stopped trading and has limited financial resources.
A HSE Inspector commented upon the case:
"This tragic event illustrates the critical importance of having sufficient protective features within a control system.
Just one fault sent this lift out of control. Completed lifts have many protective features and this principle cannot be ignored when lifts are being constructed. That is why the permanent car top controls should be used whenever possible, rather than temporary ones."
Company fined £210,000 after driver killed at landfill site
The death of a driver at a landfill site in Northamptonshire led to a waste management and recycling company being prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive and being fined £210,000.
The Driver arrived at the site to empty his refuse lorry and had to be assisted onto and off the tipping area as wet weather had led to soft ground conditions at the site. A bulldozer towed the refuse lorry to the tipping area where he discharged part of his load, in order to shed the rest of the load, the lorry needed to move forward but had become bogged sown in the soft ground. The Driver was radioed by the driver of the compactor who was spreading rubbish behind his lorry, to say he would drive up behind the Driver’s lorry and push it forward using the compactor. The bulldozer in front of the Driver reversed up to the front of the lorry to give him a tow.
Both vehicles tried to help the lorry move, without communicating with each other.
As the compactor began to push the lorry forward, the Driver was attaching a tow rope from the bulldozer to the front of his lorry. He was crushed to death between his lorry and the back of the bulldozer.
Northampton Crown Court heard that the landfill company had not defined supervisory roles for the staff at the site and that there were ambiguous site rules concerning the pushing of lorries. It also heard how new working arrangements had been introduced at the site a few days before the incident without being properly assessed for risk.
The company was fined £210,000 and ordered to pay costs of £38,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
A HSE Inspector said:
This sort of accident could have been avoided through conducting an appropriate risk assessment. Find out more about risk assessments and how we can help you by telephoning us on 01509 550023.
Website
The Driver arrived at the site to empty his refuse lorry and had to be assisted onto and off the tipping area as wet weather had led to soft ground conditions at the site. A bulldozer towed the refuse lorry to the tipping area where he discharged part of his load, in order to shed the rest of the load, the lorry needed to move forward but had become bogged sown in the soft ground. The Driver was radioed by the driver of the compactor who was spreading rubbish behind his lorry, to say he would drive up behind the Driver’s lorry and push it forward using the compactor. The bulldozer in front of the Driver reversed up to the front of the lorry to give him a tow.
Both vehicles tried to help the lorry move, without communicating with each other.
As the compactor began to push the lorry forward, the Driver was attaching a tow rope from the bulldozer to the front of his lorry. He was crushed to death between his lorry and the back of the bulldozer.
Northampton Crown Court heard that the landfill company had not defined supervisory roles for the staff at the site and that there were ambiguous site rules concerning the pushing of lorries. It also heard how new working arrangements had been introduced at the site a few days before the incident without being properly assessed for risk.
The company was fined £210,000 and ordered to pay costs of £38,000 after pleading guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
A HSE Inspector said:
"Every company has a legal responsibility to take care of people working on their site, whether they are employed by them or not, in whatever circumstances they are asked to operate. Assessing risks, mitigating them wherever possible or stopping work as appropriate is the least people should expect from companies. Employers need to ensure their staff understand their roles and responsibilities in making sure sites like this operate to clear site safety rules."
"In this case, the prosecution shows that this has not happened and the Driver’s family have lost him as a result."
This sort of accident could have been avoided through conducting an appropriate risk assessment. Find out more about risk assessments and how we can help you by telephoning us on 01509 550023.
Website
Monday, 7 June 2010
Food Safety - Scores on the Doors
Consumers in most areas can see how well a food business complies with food hygiene regulations through ‘Scores on the Doors’ schemes run by their local authority.
The primary purpose of these ‘Scores on the Doors’ schemes is to allow consumers to make informed choices about the places in which they eat out and from which they purchase food, and, through this, to encourage businesses to improve hygiene standards. Journalists also make use of the ‘Scores on the Doors’ system to publicise the standards of food businesses.
Local authority enforcement officers are responsible for inspecting food businesses to ensure that they meet the legal requirements on food hygiene. Under ‘Scores on the Doors’ schemes, each food outlet is given a hygiene rating or hygiene score that reflects the inspection findings and may display this in their premises where consumers can see it. Scores are also available via websites where consumers can see the scores for all the businesses in the local area.
At the moment, more than 200 local authorities across the UK have Scores on the Doors schemes in place. These schemes vary in their design and the way that they are operated. Some authorities use a star grading system, usually three or five star ranges, others use smiley face symbols. The Food Standards Agency is hoping to standardise the system nationwide to make it easier to understand.
Freedom of information legislation means that inspection reports on food hygiene are in the public domain and any member of the public can ask to see them. ‘Scores on the Doors’ makes food safety conditions at individual premises even more obvious and accessible to the public and the media
To maximise the potential ‘Scores on the Doors’ score it is obviously important to demonstrate good cleaning and food safety practices during the inspection. Just as important as this, however, is to be able to prove that management and staff have received adequate training in food hygiene and that there is a sufficient written food safety management system in place. The weighting given to training and management systems in the scoring of ‘Scores on the Doors’ is high. This often means that where these are lacking, a low score is given even when the physical conditions and practices on site during the inspection are good.
Creating a food safety management system does not have to be complicated. The Food Standards Agency has provided a very easy to use system called ‘Safer Food, Better Business’, which can either be found on the internet or can be provided in paper form from your local authority Environmental Health Department. The hazard analysis part of the system is in a really easy to use ‘fill in the gaps’ format and the record keeping diary is also very simple. There is no requirement for endless records and emphasis is put on only recording things that go wrong and what corrective action is taken.
Training is also easy to do. The ‘Safer Food Better Business System’ itself can be used to aid in house training and excellent food safety courses are available from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and other organisations. These are often available through local colleges, local authorities and many private training centres.
Need Help? Contact us at our website
The primary purpose of these ‘Scores on the Doors’ schemes is to allow consumers to make informed choices about the places in which they eat out and from which they purchase food, and, through this, to encourage businesses to improve hygiene standards. Journalists also make use of the ‘Scores on the Doors’ system to publicise the standards of food businesses.
Local authority enforcement officers are responsible for inspecting food businesses to ensure that they meet the legal requirements on food hygiene. Under ‘Scores on the Doors’ schemes, each food outlet is given a hygiene rating or hygiene score that reflects the inspection findings and may display this in their premises where consumers can see it. Scores are also available via websites where consumers can see the scores for all the businesses in the local area.
At the moment, more than 200 local authorities across the UK have Scores on the Doors schemes in place. These schemes vary in their design and the way that they are operated. Some authorities use a star grading system, usually three or five star ranges, others use smiley face symbols. The Food Standards Agency is hoping to standardise the system nationwide to make it easier to understand.
Freedom of information legislation means that inspection reports on food hygiene are in the public domain and any member of the public can ask to see them. ‘Scores on the Doors’ makes food safety conditions at individual premises even more obvious and accessible to the public and the media
To maximise the potential ‘Scores on the Doors’ score it is obviously important to demonstrate good cleaning and food safety practices during the inspection. Just as important as this, however, is to be able to prove that management and staff have received adequate training in food hygiene and that there is a sufficient written food safety management system in place. The weighting given to training and management systems in the scoring of ‘Scores on the Doors’ is high. This often means that where these are lacking, a low score is given even when the physical conditions and practices on site during the inspection are good.
Creating a food safety management system does not have to be complicated. The Food Standards Agency has provided a very easy to use system called ‘Safer Food, Better Business’, which can either be found on the internet or can be provided in paper form from your local authority Environmental Health Department. The hazard analysis part of the system is in a really easy to use ‘fill in the gaps’ format and the record keeping diary is also very simple. There is no requirement for endless records and emphasis is put on only recording things that go wrong and what corrective action is taken.
Training is also easy to do. The ‘Safer Food Better Business System’ itself can be used to aid in house training and excellent food safety courses are available from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and other organisations. These are often available through local colleges, local authorities and many private training centres.
Need Help? Contact us at our website
Monday, 10 May 2010
A Burnley tool manufacturer was fined £1,000 after one of its workers lost a finger when it became trapped in machinery.
The tool manufacturer was prosecuted by the HSE following the incident. The injured worker was using a piece of emery cloth to reduce the size of a metal component on a metalworking lathe. Predictably, the cloth became trapped by the rotating mechanism, pulling in his right hand. Mr Whittaker was wearing a glove at the time which pulled his hand further into the machinery.
The worker had not received training on how to operate the machine safely, or on the dangers of using emery cloths on metalworking lathes. The HSE investigation revealed that the company had failed to assess adequately the risks of using emery cloths on rotating equipment and had not implemented a safe system of work to control the risks.
The HSE commented:
The tool manufacturer was prosecuted by the HSE following the incident. The injured worker was using a piece of emery cloth to reduce the size of a metal component on a metalworking lathe. Predictably, the cloth became trapped by the rotating mechanism, pulling in his right hand. Mr Whittaker was wearing a glove at the time which pulled his hand further into the machinery.
The worker had not received training on how to operate the machine safely, or on the dangers of using emery cloths on metalworking lathes. The HSE investigation revealed that the company had failed to assess adequately the risks of using emery cloths on rotating equipment and had not implemented a safe system of work to control the risks.
The HSE commented:
"Paul Whittaker has been unable to return to work and his injury has significantly affected his ability to grip and lift with his right hand. Sadly injuries like the one he suffered are all too common.
"A significant proportion of incidents at lathes are caused by emery clothes being used in an unsafe way. If Mr Whittaker had been warned against using a piece of emery cloth while he worked on the lathe, he would not have lost his finger."
"This incident is also a reminder that gloves should not be worn when working with rotating parts. I hope manufacturers learn lessons from this case so that no more workers suffer permanent injuries in the future."
Friday, 7 May 2010
Missing guard - bread maker loses finger
A specialist bread manufacturing company was fined after a worker was injured by a dough mixing machine and had his finger amputated.
The worker was using a spiral mixing machine to make dough when his left hand came into contact with the unguarded beater of the mixing machine. Consequently, part of his left index finger had to be amputated.
An investigation by the HSE revealed that the guard covering the dangerous parts of the machine had been missing for some time before the incident. Further to this, previous advice from the HSE regarding the maintenance of machinery in the factory had been ignored.
The Barnet based bread making company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER)and was fined £3,500 (with costs of £2,926).
The HSE inspector commented:
The worker was using a spiral mixing machine to make dough when his left hand came into contact with the unguarded beater of the mixing machine. Consequently, part of his left index finger had to be amputated.
An investigation by the HSE revealed that the guard covering the dangerous parts of the machine had been missing for some time before the incident. Further to this, previous advice from the HSE regarding the maintenance of machinery in the factory had been ignored.
The Barnet based bread making company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER)and was fined £3,500 (with costs of £2,926).
The HSE inspector commented:
"This incident could easily have been avoided. The hazards associated with this type of machine are understood within the food manufacturing industry and there is clear guidance on the guarding standards which should be followed.
"There were clear failings on this occasion. Had a simple guard been fitted to this machine then ... would never have suffered these injuries."
Monday, 3 May 2010
Worker nearly loses foot in machinery
A Bradford farming company was prosecuted by the HSE after an employee was seriously injured after slipping into a manure machine. The employee lost his big toe and part of the heel of his left foot, broke all his toes and severely damaged the ankle of his right foot when he fell into a manure auger.
An investigation by the HSE revealed that the auger, a screw conveyor that takes the manure out of a battery hen house, was not sufficiently guarded, allowing the the worker to slipp in and to trap both feet.
The court was told that the doctor attending the incident became so concerned for the man's welfare that firefighters seriously considered removing his foot as the only means of getting him out of the machine. The worker is currently still off work and recovering from his injuries.
The employer was fined £2,000 (with costs of £1,395) after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
Following the trial, the HSE inspector commented:
"This worker nearly lost his foot, and he has suffered long term injuries - all because his employer failed to ensure the machine was properly guarded.
... (the Compnay)needed to install properly-fitted guarding to this machine, to prevent this incident.
... Employers must thoroughly plan work activities around dangerous machinery, to account for any risks and to avoid these incidents from happening."
An investigation by the HSE revealed that the auger, a screw conveyor that takes the manure out of a battery hen house, was not sufficiently guarded, allowing the the worker to slipp in and to trap both feet.
The court was told that the doctor attending the incident became so concerned for the man's welfare that firefighters seriously considered removing his foot as the only means of getting him out of the machine. The worker is currently still off work and recovering from his injuries.
The employer was fined £2,000 (with costs of £1,395) after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998
Following the trial, the HSE inspector commented:
"This worker nearly lost his foot, and he has suffered long term injuries - all because his employer failed to ensure the machine was properly guarded.
... (the Compnay)needed to install properly-fitted guarding to this machine, to prevent this incident.
... Employers must thoroughly plan work activities around dangerous machinery, to account for any risks and to avoid these incidents from happening."
Thursday, 18 March 2010
Charity and Voluntary Workers
Introduction
Charity and voluntary workers make significant contributions to the quality of life of many people both at the local communities level and also more broadly at the national and even the international levels. The effective management of Health and Safety can be a challenging area in any organisation, but the problems can be greater in the charity and voluntary sector as many of the workers are not paid employees working regularly for the organisation, but are often unpaid workers making small, but valuable, time contributions. The charity and voluntary sector also uses workers from a very wide age range and probably has a greater proportion of very elderly workers than any other sector, as many people find more time for voluntary work when they have retired from other work. All workers, including paid employees and voluntary (unpaid) workers, have a right to work in a safe workplace where appropriate actions have been taken to prevent accidents and ill health. Both paid and unpaid workers also have a duty to contribute to the general health and safety of their workplace, in the same way that employees do in other work areas.
Charity and voluntary work can cover a wide range of activities, almost as broad as other working areas, but generally without the industrial aspects. Such work can include: office work; handling patients; retail work; driving (either alone, with others or transporting people); visiting people in their homes; etc. Typical hazardous are similar to other workplaces (such as fire; electrical; slips, trips and falls; etc.) as well as lone working and the manual handling difficulties associated with lifting and moving people. There may also be issues associated with fund raising activities, such as money handling, and with lone working.
Charity and voluntary organisations and Health & Safety law
It should come as no surprise that charity and voluntary organisations are subject to the same health and safety laws as comparable non-charity and non-voluntary organisations. They have a duty to ensure the health and safety of their employees and also any non-employees who may be affected by the undertakings of the organisation. These duties arise from Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974. Also, they are subject to a requirement to undertake assessments of the risks to employees (and non-employees) arising from their undertakings under Regulations 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. The application of other health and safety legislation depends on the exact nature and undertakings of the organisation, just as it would in all other sectors.
In order to determine what health and safety legislation applies and how to comply with its variation provisions, charity and voluntary organisations must have access to competent health and safety advice. This may be provided from within the organisation or can be brought in from external sources, such as consultants.
As it is not uncommon to have elderly workers engaged in charity and voluntary work, the potential extra vulnerability of these people to injury needs to be accounted for in the risk assessments and in the control measures.
Training
Voluntary workers are not exempted from training and should be included in your training health and safety programmes. Due to the nature of voluntary work, consideration needs to be given to the most suitable way of doing this and the organisation will need to be flexible with the training times and the venues. Voluntary workers should be given suitable induction training, just like all other workers and this should include: Fire arrangements for the workplace; First aid arrangements for the workplace; Awareness of higher risk areas and operations; etc.
On the job (or tool box style) training may be provided to ensure that workers are aware of the risks to which they may be exposed and to ensure that they are aware of (and use) the appropriate control measures (such as those arising from the risk assessments) to avoid and control these risks.
In line with other work areas, records should be maintained of all of the training provided to workers.
Two examples of issues facing charity and voluntary workers
Dealing with donated goods
Charities often receive donations of goods for use or to be sold (such as in charity shops). Often, these goods are delivered in boxes or bags and are not sorted and are not packaged with the safety of the sorter in mind. The bags and boxes may be heavy and not substantial enough for the loads contained. After sorting, the goods may need to be cleaned before being displayed for sale.
Typical hazards and harm from sorting donated goods
• Manual handling of boxes and bags (often many of each and of variable, unknown and often heavy weights), leading to:
o Back injuries
o Slips, trips and falls while handling the bags and boxes
• Poor housekeeping arising from the number of boxes and bags donated and the unpacking and sorting of the materials, leading to:
o Slips, trips and falls
o Manual handling injuries due to over reaching
• Sharp objects (such as knives, broken glass and china, etc)
o Cuts and puncture wounds
• Contamination (materials that have leaked or clothing that is soiled or has become mouldy, etc)
o Exposure to substances hazardous to health
o Infections
• Ergonomic issue ( from working on tables of poor height and working from boxes and bags of variable size and shape)
o Back injuries
• Work Equipment issues (such as washing machines, steaming equipment, ironing equipment, etc)
o Electrical
o Burns and scolds
Typical measures to control the risks associated with sorting donated goods
• Ensure that there are sufficient people to handle the number (and weight) of the bags and boxes that need to be sorted
• Where appropriate, provide trolleys, sack trucks or other manual handling aids
• Provide suitable instruction to workers on how to lift and carry boxes and bags
• Ensure that workers take breaks from the physical exertion of lifting carrying
• Ensure that the work areas (including the means of access to and egress from them) are kept clean and clear of obstructions
• Ensure that the lighting in the sorting area is satisfactory
• Provide an sufficient number of suitable bins for the safe disposal and, where appropriate, segregation of waste from the sorting operation
• Provide a clear, flat surface of sufficient size for bags and boxes to the emptied out onto before sorting the contents
• Ensure that the work surface is at a suitable height for the workers involved in the sorting operation
• Provide appropriate personal protective equipment, such as protective gloves for handling sharp objects and appropriate gloves for handling contaminated items
• Establish a policy for dealing with broken glass (hoe to deal with it and how and where to dispose of it)
• Provide suitable bag openers or bag holders for holding “rag bags” open when they are being filled with fabrics
• Restrict the use of work equipment (such as steaming equipment) to those who have been trained in the use of the equipment.
• Provide a suitable ironing board that adjusts to a suitable height for the working using it
• Arrange for all work equipment to be maintained in good condition and for electrical equipment to be tested and inspected by a competent person regularly
Working in a drug “drop in” centre
Voluntary workers often help to man the various drug “drop in” centres around the country, either providing administrative support or providing counselling skills. Such centres provide help and advice as well as counselling services to their clients, which include: drug users and to their friends and families. In these settings, the potential for unpredictable behaviour from drug users visiting the centre means that aggressive and even violent situations are not uncommon.
Typical hazards and harm from working in a drug “drop in” centre
• The unpredictable nature of some drug users and other clients, leading to aggressive and violent behaviour, resulting in:
o Verbal abuse from clients
o Property damage caused by clients
o Personal injury caused by assault by clients
Typical measures to control the risks associated with working in a drug “drop in” centre
• Ensure that all workers are aware of what might happen in the centre and are aware of the procedures to be followed
• Establish and practice effective emergency procedures, including the use of panic alarms (that summon aid from other areas of the premises and (maybe) also from the local police service)
• Establish, and publish details of, a “zero tolerance” approach to violence and aggression – display suitable posters and bring this policy to the attention of all users of the centre
• Provide workers with suitable and sufficient training and information. In particular this should address:
o the adoption of a non-confrontational and non-judgemental approach to clients and the avoidance of patronising behaviour
o workers should be trained to help to create an equal balance of power between workers and clients
o the various control measures that are in place throughout the centre to safeguard workers
o identifying challenging behaviour in clients and strategies for diffusing the situation
o instructing workers not to compromise their own safety
• Consideration to the layout and design of the premises, with consideration to the safety of workers and also to the privacy needs of the clients. This would include:
o Suitable access control to the premises
o Provision of light, spacious, airy and well-decorated public and working areas, designed to give a calming and welcoming effect
o Provision of a Reception desk designed to provide a central control point from which all client accessible areas can be supervised
o Ensuring that the counselling rooms provide privacy, but are also within hearing distance of the reception and that they have suitable panic alarms fitted
o Design of the workers’ office areas such that they are located out of client sight, but are open plan to allow workers to see each other
• Establish suitable work procedures to help to minimise the risks of conflict, including:
o a good, accurate appointment system
o avoiding keeping clients waiting (which may result in them becoming annoyed or frustrated)
o continuous staff of reception by trained workers
o procedures to respond to panic alarms in a prompt and appropriate manner
Summary
The challenges associated with the management of health and safety charity and voluntary workers are not that different from those facing other businesses. Many of them can be dealt with by the application of thought and common sense. In line with all other businesses, there is a requirement to consider the risks that workers may be exposed to and to establish controls to avoid and control these risks. The examples above demonstrate that the processes to control the risks are not difficult to identify or to implement. There are two particular problems that need to be considered carefully for the charity and voluntary sector: training of workers and the potential for elderly workers.
Please visit our website
Charity and voluntary workers make significant contributions to the quality of life of many people both at the local communities level and also more broadly at the national and even the international levels. The effective management of Health and Safety can be a challenging area in any organisation, but the problems can be greater in the charity and voluntary sector as many of the workers are not paid employees working regularly for the organisation, but are often unpaid workers making small, but valuable, time contributions. The charity and voluntary sector also uses workers from a very wide age range and probably has a greater proportion of very elderly workers than any other sector, as many people find more time for voluntary work when they have retired from other work. All workers, including paid employees and voluntary (unpaid) workers, have a right to work in a safe workplace where appropriate actions have been taken to prevent accidents and ill health. Both paid and unpaid workers also have a duty to contribute to the general health and safety of their workplace, in the same way that employees do in other work areas.
Charity and voluntary work can cover a wide range of activities, almost as broad as other working areas, but generally without the industrial aspects. Such work can include: office work; handling patients; retail work; driving (either alone, with others or transporting people); visiting people in their homes; etc. Typical hazardous are similar to other workplaces (such as fire; electrical; slips, trips and falls; etc.) as well as lone working and the manual handling difficulties associated with lifting and moving people. There may also be issues associated with fund raising activities, such as money handling, and with lone working.
Charity and voluntary organisations and Health & Safety law
It should come as no surprise that charity and voluntary organisations are subject to the same health and safety laws as comparable non-charity and non-voluntary organisations. They have a duty to ensure the health and safety of their employees and also any non-employees who may be affected by the undertakings of the organisation. These duties arise from Sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974. Also, they are subject to a requirement to undertake assessments of the risks to employees (and non-employees) arising from their undertakings under Regulations 3 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. The application of other health and safety legislation depends on the exact nature and undertakings of the organisation, just as it would in all other sectors.
In order to determine what health and safety legislation applies and how to comply with its variation provisions, charity and voluntary organisations must have access to competent health and safety advice. This may be provided from within the organisation or can be brought in from external sources, such as consultants.
As it is not uncommon to have elderly workers engaged in charity and voluntary work, the potential extra vulnerability of these people to injury needs to be accounted for in the risk assessments and in the control measures.
Training
Voluntary workers are not exempted from training and should be included in your training health and safety programmes. Due to the nature of voluntary work, consideration needs to be given to the most suitable way of doing this and the organisation will need to be flexible with the training times and the venues. Voluntary workers should be given suitable induction training, just like all other workers and this should include: Fire arrangements for the workplace; First aid arrangements for the workplace; Awareness of higher risk areas and operations; etc.
On the job (or tool box style) training may be provided to ensure that workers are aware of the risks to which they may be exposed and to ensure that they are aware of (and use) the appropriate control measures (such as those arising from the risk assessments) to avoid and control these risks.
In line with other work areas, records should be maintained of all of the training provided to workers.
Two examples of issues facing charity and voluntary workers
Dealing with donated goods
Charities often receive donations of goods for use or to be sold (such as in charity shops). Often, these goods are delivered in boxes or bags and are not sorted and are not packaged with the safety of the sorter in mind. The bags and boxes may be heavy and not substantial enough for the loads contained. After sorting, the goods may need to be cleaned before being displayed for sale.
Typical hazards and harm from sorting donated goods
• Manual handling of boxes and bags (often many of each and of variable, unknown and often heavy weights), leading to:
o Back injuries
o Slips, trips and falls while handling the bags and boxes
• Poor housekeeping arising from the number of boxes and bags donated and the unpacking and sorting of the materials, leading to:
o Slips, trips and falls
o Manual handling injuries due to over reaching
• Sharp objects (such as knives, broken glass and china, etc)
o Cuts and puncture wounds
• Contamination (materials that have leaked or clothing that is soiled or has become mouldy, etc)
o Exposure to substances hazardous to health
o Infections
• Ergonomic issue ( from working on tables of poor height and working from boxes and bags of variable size and shape)
o Back injuries
• Work Equipment issues (such as washing machines, steaming equipment, ironing equipment, etc)
o Electrical
o Burns and scolds
Typical measures to control the risks associated with sorting donated goods
• Ensure that there are sufficient people to handle the number (and weight) of the bags and boxes that need to be sorted
• Where appropriate, provide trolleys, sack trucks or other manual handling aids
• Provide suitable instruction to workers on how to lift and carry boxes and bags
• Ensure that workers take breaks from the physical exertion of lifting carrying
• Ensure that the work areas (including the means of access to and egress from them) are kept clean and clear of obstructions
• Ensure that the lighting in the sorting area is satisfactory
• Provide an sufficient number of suitable bins for the safe disposal and, where appropriate, segregation of waste from the sorting operation
• Provide a clear, flat surface of sufficient size for bags and boxes to the emptied out onto before sorting the contents
• Ensure that the work surface is at a suitable height for the workers involved in the sorting operation
• Provide appropriate personal protective equipment, such as protective gloves for handling sharp objects and appropriate gloves for handling contaminated items
• Establish a policy for dealing with broken glass (hoe to deal with it and how and where to dispose of it)
• Provide suitable bag openers or bag holders for holding “rag bags” open when they are being filled with fabrics
• Restrict the use of work equipment (such as steaming equipment) to those who have been trained in the use of the equipment.
• Provide a suitable ironing board that adjusts to a suitable height for the working using it
• Arrange for all work equipment to be maintained in good condition and for electrical equipment to be tested and inspected by a competent person regularly
Working in a drug “drop in” centre
Voluntary workers often help to man the various drug “drop in” centres around the country, either providing administrative support or providing counselling skills. Such centres provide help and advice as well as counselling services to their clients, which include: drug users and to their friends and families. In these settings, the potential for unpredictable behaviour from drug users visiting the centre means that aggressive and even violent situations are not uncommon.
Typical hazards and harm from working in a drug “drop in” centre
• The unpredictable nature of some drug users and other clients, leading to aggressive and violent behaviour, resulting in:
o Verbal abuse from clients
o Property damage caused by clients
o Personal injury caused by assault by clients
Typical measures to control the risks associated with working in a drug “drop in” centre
• Ensure that all workers are aware of what might happen in the centre and are aware of the procedures to be followed
• Establish and practice effective emergency procedures, including the use of panic alarms (that summon aid from other areas of the premises and (maybe) also from the local police service)
• Establish, and publish details of, a “zero tolerance” approach to violence and aggression – display suitable posters and bring this policy to the attention of all users of the centre
• Provide workers with suitable and sufficient training and information. In particular this should address:
o the adoption of a non-confrontational and non-judgemental approach to clients and the avoidance of patronising behaviour
o workers should be trained to help to create an equal balance of power between workers and clients
o the various control measures that are in place throughout the centre to safeguard workers
o identifying challenging behaviour in clients and strategies for diffusing the situation
o instructing workers not to compromise their own safety
• Consideration to the layout and design of the premises, with consideration to the safety of workers and also to the privacy needs of the clients. This would include:
o Suitable access control to the premises
o Provision of light, spacious, airy and well-decorated public and working areas, designed to give a calming and welcoming effect
o Provision of a Reception desk designed to provide a central control point from which all client accessible areas can be supervised
o Ensuring that the counselling rooms provide privacy, but are also within hearing distance of the reception and that they have suitable panic alarms fitted
o Design of the workers’ office areas such that they are located out of client sight, but are open plan to allow workers to see each other
• Establish suitable work procedures to help to minimise the risks of conflict, including:
o a good, accurate appointment system
o avoiding keeping clients waiting (which may result in them becoming annoyed or frustrated)
o continuous staff of reception by trained workers
o procedures to respond to panic alarms in a prompt and appropriate manner
Summary
The challenges associated with the management of health and safety charity and voluntary workers are not that different from those facing other businesses. Many of them can be dealt with by the application of thought and common sense. In line with all other businesses, there is a requirement to consider the risks that workers may be exposed to and to establish controls to avoid and control these risks. The examples above demonstrate that the processes to control the risks are not difficult to identify or to implement. There are two particular problems that need to be considered carefully for the charity and voluntary sector: training of workers and the potential for elderly workers.
Please visit our website
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)