In short, my answer would be: Think. The whole of the
risk assessment process should, in my opinion, be a thought process aimed at
reducing the risks (to as low a level as is reasonably practicable). All to
often, it is a form filling exercise aimed at appeasing the next layer up in
the project. In too many cases, the risk assessment does not relate properly to
the site and does not address in detail the hazards that the site presents. Rarely
are the risks assessments reviewed during the project and (in too many cases)
the workers have not seen them or have given them only a cursory glance.
Showing posts with label contractor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label contractor. Show all posts
Friday, 19 October 2012
What should contractors do to ensure they are compliant with best practice?
I was also asked: "What should contractors do to ensure they are compliant
with best practice?"
Thursday, 4 October 2012
Safety: Managers need to manage
Part 1: Machinery Safety
There is a problem with safety features: they can often be bypassed. Many safety professionals will have seen instances of safety interlock systems on equipment, such as CNC machines, being defeated by fixing the key into the lock part of the system either by using a spare key or by detaching the main key from the frame of the equipment. Often this is justified by the site management as being the “only way the work can be done”. This state of mind does not stand scrutiny as many other companies manage to achieve safe operation with same equipment doing the same job. The failing is often the attitude or approach to safety management in the minds of the managers, supervisors and workers.
This (lack of safety) practise has recently cost a manufacturing firm over £26,000 in fines and costs. The company was fined after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. This regulation requires employers to ensure effective measures are taken to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery.
Part 2: Fire Safety
The fire safety arrangements of businesses are under scrutiny from the Fire and Rescue services. The fire safety risk assessment for the premises is a starting point, but it needs to be acted upon and turned into something meaningful. Poundland has recently been fined more than £20,000 for having obstructed or blocked fire escape routes. A fire officer found three of the four potential exit routes from a three storey premises were blocked from the outside by stock crates. As a result, the fire officer took the unusual step of evacuating the premises until the situation had been made safe and the exit routes were cleared. The Company pleaded guilty to three charges of failing to keep the fire exits clear (as required by Article 14(1) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005). The Company was also fined for not properly training the temporary manager (as required under Article 21(1)(b)) and was subject to costs of over £7000.
There is a problem with safety features: they can often be bypassed. Many safety professionals will have seen instances of safety interlock systems on equipment, such as CNC machines, being defeated by fixing the key into the lock part of the system either by using a spare key or by detaching the main key from the frame of the equipment. Often this is justified by the site management as being the “only way the work can be done”. This state of mind does not stand scrutiny as many other companies manage to achieve safe operation with same equipment doing the same job. The failing is often the attitude or approach to safety management in the minds of the managers, supervisors and workers.
This (lack of safety) practise has recently cost a manufacturing firm over £26,000 in fines and costs. The company was fined after pleading guilty to breaching Regulation 11(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. This regulation requires employers to ensure effective measures are taken to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery.
Part 2: Fire Safety
The fire safety arrangements of businesses are under scrutiny from the Fire and Rescue services. The fire safety risk assessment for the premises is a starting point, but it needs to be acted upon and turned into something meaningful. Poundland has recently been fined more than £20,000 for having obstructed or blocked fire escape routes. A fire officer found three of the four potential exit routes from a three storey premises were blocked from the outside by stock crates. As a result, the fire officer took the unusual step of evacuating the premises until the situation had been made safe and the exit routes were cleared. The Company pleaded guilty to three charges of failing to keep the fire exits clear (as required by Article 14(1) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005). The Company was also fined for not properly training the temporary manager (as required under Article 21(1)(b)) and was subject to costs of over £7000.
Part 3: Food Safety
Although Food Safety is often seen as a different discipline to health and safety, many of the principles are the same. Good management involves looking at what is going on in the business, understanding the implications (i.e. the risks) and responding in an appropriate and proportionate manner. When warning letters are received from the local authority highlighting some food hygiene failures within the business and also suggesting some simple and low cost ways of rectifying the situation it is not appropriate or proportionate to ignore the situation. As a result of such (lack of) action, the operator of a takeaway outlet in North Wales has been jailed for eight months following an outbreak of E. coli attributed to the premises.
Part 4: Control of ContractorsAlthough Food Safety is often seen as a different discipline to health and safety, many of the principles are the same. Good management involves looking at what is going on in the business, understanding the implications (i.e. the risks) and responding in an appropriate and proportionate manner. When warning letters are received from the local authority highlighting some food hygiene failures within the business and also suggesting some simple and low cost ways of rectifying the situation it is not appropriate or proportionate to ignore the situation. As a result of such (lack of) action, the operator of a takeaway outlet in North Wales has been jailed for eight months following an outbreak of E. coli attributed to the premises.
Many people assume that when they appoint a contractor to carry out work for them that they have not further responsibility for the safety of the contractor. There have been many cases over the last few years that involve organisations paying out large fines for failing to ensure the safety of contractors. In a recent case, a paper maker was fined £260,000 (under Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974) following the death of a contractor who felt through a fragile roof. When being appointed, the contractor said that crawling boards would be used. After the accident occurred, it was established that crawling boards were not used and it was also established that the paper maker had not made reasonable efforts to ensure that the contractors were carrying out the work safely, in the manner proposed. “Companies must make sure work contractors do for them is properly planned and organised, and monitor what actually happens when the work takes place”.
Visit our website
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Managers need to manage (even when it comes to safety) - Part 4
Part 4: Control of Contractors
Friday, 17 December 2010
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.
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Fall from height - large fines
Two Gloucestershire companies have been fined after a roofing contractor fell through a skylight and suffered serious head injuries.
The two companies were prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive after a contractor fell through a fragile roof skylight while working on the roof of a sawmill building at Mile End, Coleford, Gloucestershire. The contractor fell five metres and landed on the concrete floor below, sustaining serious head injuries.
At a hearing before Gloucester Magistrates, the Sawmill company pleaded guilty to four breaches of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 and 2007 and was fined a total of £13,320 and ordered to pay costs of £14,443.
The owner of the contracting company pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined a total of £26,660 and ordered to pay costs of £14,443.
Speaking after the hearing, An HSE inspector said:
Contact us through the website
The two companies were prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive after a contractor fell through a fragile roof skylight while working on the roof of a sawmill building at Mile End, Coleford, Gloucestershire. The contractor fell five metres and landed on the concrete floor below, sustaining serious head injuries.
At a hearing before Gloucester Magistrates, the Sawmill company pleaded guilty to four breaches of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 and 2007 and was fined a total of £13,320 and ordered to pay costs of £14,443.
The owner of the contracting company pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) and 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and was fined a total of £26,660 and ordered to pay costs of £14,443.
Speaking after the hearing, An HSE inspector said:
"This incident highlights the extremely serious risks posed by working at heigh if adequate safety protection measures are not in place ... The investigation revealed significant failures in the safe systems of work for the removal of the roof sheets and also significant failure to control risks of working at height during all of the stages of the sawmill refurbishment. RS was supervising two other employees who were also at risk, one of whom was only 17 at the time of this incident ... The sawmill remained open during all of the works and employees working below were also at risk from persons or objects falling on them. (The) fall could easily have proved fatal."
Contact us through the website
Thursday, 10 June 2010
Working at height and failure to control contractors
Case 1
Failure to control the work (at height) of contractors led to a large waste management company being fined £100,000 (with costs of £22,000) for breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, Etc Act 1974 (HSWA) by failing to ensure the safety of those not in its employment. The contractor was also fined £70,000 (with costs of £22,000) after pleading guilty to contravening Section 2(1) HSWA by not ensuring its employees’ safety. The accident followed an attempt to remove the gearbox that was attached to a large fan (9 ½ metres diameter) set at a height of ten metres. The removal of the gearbox was proving problematic and appropriate hydraulic equipment should have been brought in. However, four workers stood on the fan blades and rocked them up and down. When the fan released itself, a worker overbalanced and fell ten metres, through a mesh that could not hold his weight, to a pallet below. The worker sustained serious injuries, including broken ribs, a punctured lung and a hernia. The worker fell onto a pallet of copper pipes, which absorbed much of the impact. It is likely that he would have died if he had landed on the floor.
Case 2
An electrical installations company has been fined £160,000 (with costs of about £25,000) after a workman fell to his death while dismantling a mobile tower scaffold. The worker erected the mobile tower scaffold with edge protection on the top platform, but not around the intermediate levels. While dismantling the tower (from top to bottom) the worker was attempting to remove one of the intermediate platforms when he stumbled and fell from the scaffolding and landed on the ground, five metres below. The Company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 for failing to ensure work at height was properly supervised and carried out safely.
Case 3
A worker fractured his leg and ankle after falling 4 metres from a wooden pallet that was being used as a temporary work platform that was raised by a forklift truck. Although the workers were acting on their own initiative, the problem (with a roller shutter door sticking) was one that was well known to management within the Company. The investigating HSE inspector commented that the men should have used an alternative to the pallet raised by the forklift, such as: a ladder, a mobile scaffold, a cherry picker or mobile-elevated work platform. The Company pleaded guilty to a breach of Section 2(1) of the HSWA by failing to ensure its employees’ safety. It was fined £10,000 (with costs of £5884).
Case 4
In a very recent case, a Leicester based company was fined £10,000 (with costs of £4,778) following prosecution when contracted roofers were spotted working unsafely at their premises. Safe access was provided on one of the premises, but there was not fall protection on the other side. An HSE Inspection commented “This case shows that it is not only the responsibility of the contracting company to ensure the safety of its workforce, but also it is the client’s”.
Failure to control the work (at height) of contractors led to a large waste management company being fined £100,000 (with costs of £22,000) for breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work, Etc Act 1974 (HSWA) by failing to ensure the safety of those not in its employment. The contractor was also fined £70,000 (with costs of £22,000) after pleading guilty to contravening Section 2(1) HSWA by not ensuring its employees’ safety. The accident followed an attempt to remove the gearbox that was attached to a large fan (9 ½ metres diameter) set at a height of ten metres. The removal of the gearbox was proving problematic and appropriate hydraulic equipment should have been brought in. However, four workers stood on the fan blades and rocked them up and down. When the fan released itself, a worker overbalanced and fell ten metres, through a mesh that could not hold his weight, to a pallet below. The worker sustained serious injuries, including broken ribs, a punctured lung and a hernia. The worker fell onto a pallet of copper pipes, which absorbed much of the impact. It is likely that he would have died if he had landed on the floor.
Case 2
An electrical installations company has been fined £160,000 (with costs of about £25,000) after a workman fell to his death while dismantling a mobile tower scaffold. The worker erected the mobile tower scaffold with edge protection on the top platform, but not around the intermediate levels. While dismantling the tower (from top to bottom) the worker was attempting to remove one of the intermediate platforms when he stumbled and fell from the scaffolding and landed on the ground, five metres below. The Company pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 for failing to ensure work at height was properly supervised and carried out safely.
Case 3
A worker fractured his leg and ankle after falling 4 metres from a wooden pallet that was being used as a temporary work platform that was raised by a forklift truck. Although the workers were acting on their own initiative, the problem (with a roller shutter door sticking) was one that was well known to management within the Company. The investigating HSE inspector commented that the men should have used an alternative to the pallet raised by the forklift, such as: a ladder, a mobile scaffold, a cherry picker or mobile-elevated work platform. The Company pleaded guilty to a breach of Section 2(1) of the HSWA by failing to ensure its employees’ safety. It was fined £10,000 (with costs of £5884).
Case 4
In a very recent case, a Leicester based company was fined £10,000 (with costs of £4,778) following prosecution when contracted roofers were spotted working unsafely at their premises. Safe access was provided on one of the premises, but there was not fall protection on the other side. An HSE Inspection commented “This case shows that it is not only the responsibility of the contracting company to ensure the safety of its workforce, but also it is the client’s”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)