Safety Matters - february 2007

This newsletter is available on free subscription only and is our way of keeping you informed about developments in Health and Safety. To review or amend your subscription details, please see the notes at the end.

NEBOSH General Certificate course now open for bookings in May/June 2007

7 candidates participated in our recent NEBOSH General Certificate course and took their examination in January. As always, we have a very high expectation of pass rates. We are now taking bookings for our May/June 2007 course on a strictly first come, first served basis. Click here for further information.

In this issue:

Safety regulators ease up on new legislation

Beware of no-smoking signs

Workplace stress award of £134,545 upheld by Court of Appeal

Oil giant BP blasted over its management of safety

Inadequate risk assessment results in £15,000 fine

Company fined £160k after worker was run over by a four tonne vehicle

Second crane collapse kills worker

Company ignored warnings from fork lift truck drivers

House of Lords decision requires employers to assess all foreseeable risks, even when created by the carelessness of others

Are your company's safety systems up to scratch or are you risking prosecution? At MESH we have extensive experience of helping companies to improve their health and safety and in many cases improve their competitiveness.

Safety regulators ease up on new legislation

The Health and Safety Commission's statement of forthcoming regulations for 2007 includes just three new sets of regulations for April and two more for October.

However, these are largely very industry specific and, with the exception of the Construction Design and Management Regulations, unlikely to have any widespread implications for businesses.

This is a change from what we have been used to seeing where there has been at least one piece of legislation from the HSC each year, which has a widespread impact on industry. For example, last year we had the Control of Noise at Work Regulations and in 2005 the Work at Height Regulations.

This time around the CDM regulations are probably the closest we have to 'major legislation'. Although the main focus is on the construction industry, these regulations also impact on all property owners and occupiers, as well as designers, facilities management and maintenance.

The small number of new regulations is probably symptomatic of a shift in approach by the Health and Safety Commission in recent years towards the encouragement of a risk management led approach to safety and the promotion of good practice, rather than excessive rule-making.

New legislation due in April 2007 includes:

• The Work At Height (Amendment) Regulations - these bring workers paid to lead or train others in climbing and caving activities in the adventure activity sector within scope of the Work at Height Regulations 2005;
  
  
• The Construction Design and Management Regulations - a single set of key construction Regulations, mainly revising, simplifying and consolidating the Construction (Design & Management) (CDM) Regulations 1994 and the Construction (Health, Safety & Welfare) (CHSW) Regulations 1996.

Back to top

Beware of no-smoking signs!

Employers are warned not to purchase no-smoking signs in preparation for no-smoking legislation until they know the final legal requirements for such a sign.

In England, new laws concerning the size and contents of a no-smoking sign being displayed in the workplace will come into force on July 1 2007. A no-smoking sign that is worded, for example, "Thank You for Not Smoking" will not comply with the proposed legal requirements for such a sign.

The proposed legal requirements for a no-smoking sign are contained in the draft Smoke-free (Signs) Regulations and the Government has stated that these draft regulations are unlikely to change. The draft regulations and the Government's statement can be viewed online at:

www.smokefreeengland.co.uk/thefacts/regulations.
  
The Department of Health intends to provide employers with no-smoking signs that will comply with the no-smoking legislation before it comes into force. The no-smoking signs will be free of charge.

Back to top

Workplace stress award of £134,545 upheld by Court of Appeal

A large payout for workplace stress has been upheld by the Court of Appeal in a move that could force employers to pay more attention to employees' mental health.

Tracy Daw, who worked for chipmaker Intel for almost 13 years, was awarded £134,545 damages last year after suffering a nervous breakdown which she said was brought on by pressure at work. She claimed her employer had failed to respond to her repeated concerns about her heavy workload and blurred reporting lines.

The High Court judge who made the award ruled that the demands her employer had made on her were "totally unreasonable" and the risk to her health had been clear.

The High Court's findings over Intel's liability and the size of the award were recently backed by the Court of Appeal which ruled that the judge "was fully entitled to hold that it was a failure of management, which created the stresses and led to the breakdown".

Intel had attempted to deny liability by arguing that its employees had access to a counselling service and medical assistance and, had Ms Daw used these, the extent of her problem would have become clear. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument saying counselling services were not a "panacea" that allow employers to discharge their duty of care to employees.

Is stress an issue that you find difficult to recognise or manage? Have you carried out the necessary risk assessments required under legislation? And have you considered training managers to identify and deal with stress problems? If the answer to any of these is no then why not contact MESH as we have extensive experience of helping a wide range of organisations.

Back to top

Oil giant BP blasted over its management of safety

The criticisms came following the year long investigation into the massive explosion at the BP plant in Texas, in which 15 people died and more than 170 were injured.

The conclusions identified that BP had not provided effective management of safety across its US refineries particularly in that it:

• Did not always ensure that adequate resources were made available;
• Did not effectively define the level of process safety knowledge or competency required of management, refinery personnel and contractors;
• Had made a mistaken interpretation that falling injury rates were an indication of acceptable safety performance;
• Had a lack of openness and ineffective communication lines at some refineries;
• Had a lack of accountability of senior management;
• Hazards were not adequately identified;
• Lessons were not learnt from previous incidents;
• There was a culture of under reporting of incidents and near misses.

This investigation identifies problems that other companies can learn from and use to re-examine their own safety cultures. You should ask yourself is your organisation likely to fail in any of the above.

Back to top

Inadequate risk assessment results in £15,000 fine

A Manchester roofing company has been fined for failing to prepare an adequate method statement.

Foildek Roofings Ltd of Manchester pleaded guilty at Manchester Crown Court to a breach of s.2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 following serious injuries to an employee who fell 7 metres through an asbestos cement corrugated roof panel onto the floor of a warehouse in 2004.

The employee broke both wrists, his ankle and his elbow, and suffered bleeding on the brain as a result of a fractured skull. The company had failed to provide roof boards and edge protection, a safe system of work for raising replacement roof panels from the ground to the roof, safe access to the roof, and adequate control measures to prevent the risk of falls. It was fined £15,000 with £6,939 costs.

The Health and Safety Executive inspector investigating the incident said: "Plenty of guidance is available to the roofing industry. The risks associated with falls through fragile roofs are well-known and documented. However, in this case Foildek failed to have proper regard for the safety of the men who were placed at risk."

Back to top

Company fined £160k after worker was run over by a four tonne vehicle

The company was fined a total of £150,000 and ordered to pay costs of £10,960 after admitting to two safety breaches after a maintenance engineer was run over by a heavy rail-mounted vehicle.

The engineer sustained serious lower body injuries in the incident; he fractured both femurs and needed surgery to his pelvis and hips. This was caused when he was hit by the vehicle because the driver was unable to see him, resulting in the engineer being trapped between the vehicle and the guard of a machine.

The investigating HSE inspector commented on the importance of planning and organising transport movements to eliminate or reduce potential contact between vehicles and pedestrians.

Back to top

Second crane collapse kills worker

The latest collapse happened on a construction site in Liverpool. The crane involved was on hire from the same Norfolk based company that was involved in the recent collapse at Battersea. The HSE has since served a prohibition on the company requiring it to take out of service all of its tower cranes that have not been thoroughly examined by a competent person.

Back to top

Company ignored warnings from fork lift truck drivers

A food manufacturing company was fined £60,000 after the near fatal injury of an employee hit by a fork lift truck. The company pleaded guilty to breaches of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, by not organising safe traffic movements within its premises and not conducting suitable and sufficient risk assessments as required by the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999.

The court heard that the forklift truck drivers had on previous occasions raised concerns over pedestrians passing through an area that they felt was dangerous. Management had ignored those warnings. On the day of the incident a forklift was reversing and hit the member of staff, running over her left leg and causing injuries that required a two month stay in hospital.

Back to top

House of Lords decision requires employers to assess all foreseeable risks even when created by the carelessness of others

In considering the suitability of work equipment, an employer has a duty to anticipate potential circumstances that may give rise to accidents, even when such circumstances are brought about by the acts of a careless employee. This was the conclusion of an appeal heard in the House of Lords.

Lord Hope pointed out that when assessing the risks to which an employee might be exposed when using equipment, an employer has a duty to take account of the risks of mishandling by the careless or inattentive worker, as well as by the skilled worker who follows instructions to the letter.

This case is said to provide useful guidance as to what makes a “suitable and sufficient” risk assessment of work equipment. The assessment needs to include all reasonably foreseeable risks, even if the risk is created by the carelessness of employees.

Do you consider the actions of your employees in your risk assessments? Do you need help and training for your risk assessors to understand the effects of human behaviour in risk assessment? Then contact MESH we have plenty of experience in training risk assessors in a range of workplaces.

Back to top