Archive for the ‘Construction’ Category

Working Safely at Height

Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011

Cherry Picker

Work at height has always been hazardous and in spite of everything that has been done over recent decades to improve this record, it is still a major cause of death and serious injury in the workplace.

With the introduction of new Work at Height Regulations in 2005, the definition of the term “at height” was changed to mean any place from which a worker could injure themselves from falling – even if the workplace is at or below ground level.

A couple of recent cases in the media highlight the issues around working at height:

  • In one incident, a worker was standing on the roof of a house without any form of scaffolding, edge protection or other safety equipment. The person was using a power washer to clean the roof, creating a particularly hazardous surface. The man’s employer was prosecuted and had to pay more than £17,000 in fines and costs.More information about this case is available at
    http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2011/coi-nw-84mdroofcoatings.htm
  • In another case, a member of the public was seriously injured by scaffolding that collapsed on top of her because it was not properly secured to the building where it was being used. Part way through the work, the scaffolding had been lowered in height but no inspection carried out to ensure it was still secure. This was in contravention of the Work at Height Regulations. Both the scaffolding company and the construction company were found guilty and between them paid £19,000 in costs and fines.More information about this case is available at
    http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2011/coi-ne-04211.htm

Who is Responsible?

The Work at Height Regulations define duties that apply to employers and to anyone else who controls the work of people who are working at height including, for example, the owners of buildings where work is being carried out.

Employees are also responsible for their own health and safety and, under the Work at Height Regulations, they have a specific duty to use safety equipment correctly and to report any safety issues that they notice.

How are You Required to Discharge these Duties?

Work at height needs to be properly managed. The risks are far too high and the history of accidents is too grim for a careless attitude.

The overriding priority is to do everything that is reasonably practicable to avoid someone falling and injuring themselves. Consequently, if possible, the job should be planned to avoid the need for working at height. If this is not practicable then everything should be done to minimise the risks, including:

Training

First of all everyone who is required to work at height must be trained and competent to do so in a safe manner. If not yet fully competent then they must be supervised by someone who is. Training must cover the risks, the safety precautions and how to avoid or minimise injury.

Planning

Risk assessments should be carried out and the work planned so that it can be undertaken safely. Planning includes an appropriate level of supervision and the procedures to follow should an emergency arise.

If the work is outdoors, planning must also take account of the weather, including the possibility of interrupting work should weather conditions be such as to endanger health and safety.

Safe Place of Work

Use work equipment and safety procedures that are designed to prevent anyone falling. When selecting equipment, take account of the nature of the work and the working conditions. All safety equipment must be inspected by a competent person before work begins and at regular intervals during the project to ensure there is no deterioration.

It is also important to manage the risk of people being injured from items of equipment falling from above. Safety precautions must take account of everyone who may be present on site as well as those who are actually working at height.

Individual Safety

If it is not practicable by general safety precautions to eliminate the risk of a fall, other measures should be put in place to minimise the consequences should there be a fall. There’s a wide range of equipment that can be used for this purpose including, for example, nets, airbags and fall arrest systems.

Fragile Surfaces

Fragile surfaces, such as glass roofs, skylights or old brittle roofing materials are a particular hazard for the unwary. Whenever practicable, avoid anyone going onto or even near a fragile surface and ensure everyone is aware of the dangers by posting prominent notices, for example.

If work on a fragile surface is unavoidable, then additional precautions should be put in place to minimise the specific risks associated with the work.

Additional Help

Whilst the general advice in this article applies to all situations where people are required to work at height, the variety of circumstances is such that there are always risks that are specific to each workplace.

If you are responsible for people working at height but you are not confident that you have all necessary precautions in place, then give us a call to discuss your situation with one of our consultants.

Impact of the Corporate Manslaughter Act

Tuesday, February 22nd, 2011

We have written about the Corporate Manslaughter Act on previous occasions – just 12 months ago we reported on the first case to come to court under this Act.
(see http://www.edp-uk.net/newsletter-articles/corporate_manslaughter_court_case.htm)

In this case the company on trial – Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings – is relatively small with just eight employees, one of whom was a young geologist by the name of Alexander Wright.

Nature of the Accident

Gavel

An accident occurred in September 2008 when Mr Wright was working in a 12.5 foot deep trench taking soil samples. Contrary to well recognised industry guidance, the trench was not supported by timbers and the sides collapsed, burying Mr Wright.

The owners of the plot where the work was being carried out happened to be present at the time and were alerted to the collapse. While one called for the emergency services, the other attempted to rescue Mr Wright but the walls of the pit collapsed a second time resulting in the death of Mr Wright from traumatic asphyxiation.

The director of the company was charged with an offence under the Health and Safety at Work Act and with gross negligence manslaughter. At the same time, the company itself became the first to be charged under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. Due to the director’s severe ill health, it was decided not to pursue the personal charges. However the company was convicted of Corporate Manslaughter in February this year.

Significance of the Case

This case has attracted a great deal of media attention simply because it is the first prosecution under the Corporate Manslaughter Act. However, because it is a small company, it provides little if any indication as to how effective the Act will be against large corporations for which the Act was originally designed.

The Hazards Campaign is unimpressed. In regard to the operation of the Act they stated:

“A fundamental flaw with the new corporate manslaughter legislation is that it holds the company responsible, not the individual directors who make the decisions which lead to these disasters, and therefore no-one can be jailed, which is the appropriate sentence for taking a life by gross negligence. Currently, individual company directors can escape legal accountability and the only way to make them take protecting workers’ safety and health seriously is to implement a law making them legally responsible for the health and safety of their organisations.”

In the event, the company was fined £385,000, payable in ten equal annual instalments. This needs to be viewed against the sentencing guidelines that were published in February 2010, which state that fines should rarely be less than £500,000. The fact that this first case is one of the rare exceptions is a reflection of the company’s very poor financial situation and that it will probably go into liquidation as a consequence of the case.

In April 2008 when the Act came into force, it was suggested that there might be an average of 12 cases a year. In practice, this is the only case that has come to court so far, although the Crown Prosecution Service state that they are “considering a number of other files of evidence in relation to further possible prosecutions for the offence”.

Increasing Fines

A point of potentially greater significance to businesses is that the sentencing guidelines don’t just apply to Corporate Manslaughter cases. They also apply to other Health and Safety offences that result in someone losing their life. The sentencing guidelines may be viewed on the Sentencing Council’s website

In practice, since the introduction of the sentencing guidelines the level of fines imposed for health and safety failures that result in death have risen significantly. In addition, now that courts have definitive guidelines, there is greater consistency of fines across the country.

Dangerous Construction Sites

This was a particularly tragic case that resulted from poor standards of health and safety on a construction site. According to the judge, “This approach to trial pitting was extremely irresponsible. Peter Eaton thought he knew better. In this he was gravely and culpably mistaken”.

The Health and Safety Executive also take the general standard of health and safety in the construction industry very seriously. For the past few years they have been visiting thousands of sites across Britain and in many cases have issued orders to stop work until safety issues have been properly addressed.

This year, they are targeting refurbishment and maintenance activities, which will involve many of our readers at one time or another. It is worth remembering that if the Health and Safety Executive find that a principal contractor is not taking adequate measures to safeguard workers, the HSE will also require the client to demonstrate that they have taken adequate steps to hire a “competent” contractor.

Welfare Facilities for Construction Workers

Tuesday, February 8th, 2011

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has just republished its information sheet on the provision of welfare facilities during construction work. It reflects the legal requirements as set down in the ‘Construction (Design and Management) Regulations‘.

What must be provided?

Health and Safety Manual on the Shelf

Some employers appear to be under the impression that a cold water supply and chemical toilet are all that they are obliged to provide for the workers. The law, however, sets down the absolute minimum provision as:

  • Adequate toilet and washing facilities
  • Place to warm up and eat food
  • Place to store clothing

The provision of these facilities, which includes ensuring they are located conveniently for the workers and adequately maintained, is an essential element of the planning and preparation stages of a project.

In planning the facilities, it is vital to take account of the maximum number of people who will need to use them and of any requirements that are specific to the particular project. For example, if the work is particularly dirty, showering facilities must also be provided.

Furthermore, it is not sufficient to set up the minimum facilities and then neglect them. They really must be up to standard, be adequately maintained and cleaned.

Whose responsibility?

So who is responsible for providing these facilities? The answer is that responsibility is shared by a number of parties. That is not to say that everyone can leave responsibility to ’somebody else’. It means that if welfare provision is not up to standard then everyone is held responsible, for example:

  • The CDM Coordinator is responsible for advising the client on what welfare facilities are required during the construction phase of the project.
  • If the work is notifiable (i.e. lasts more than 30 days or requires more than 500 person days of work) the client must not permit construction work to start until contractors have adequate welfare facilities in place for their employees.
  • Contractors must ensure adequate welfare facilities are available to cater for the workers for whom they are responsible. In particular, the Principal Contractor has overall responsibility for providing the welfare facilities for the site.

There is some flexibility in terms of how the welfare facilities are provided, for example it may be possible to use facilities that are already available on site or close to it. However, everyone is responsible for ensuring they are available throughout the construction phase of a project.

You can access the new leaflet on the HSE website.

Keeping Young People Safe in the Workplace

Tuesday, August 10th, 2010

Most employers are fully aware of their duties under Health and Safety legislation to safeguard their employees from the hazards they may encounter in the workplace.

What many are less aware of is that inexperienced workers (typically in the age range from 15 to 24 years old) are likely to be more at risk than their older, more experienced colleagues.

Health and safety at work

Health and safety at work

It is helpful to know how people are defined by age in Health and Safety law:

“A Young Person” is anyone under the age of 18 years of age

“A Child” is anyone who has not yet reached the official age at which they may leave school, (this is often referred to as the minimum school leaving age, MSLA)

Larger organisations that employ significant numbers of graduates or school leavers on a routine basis should be aware of the need to consider young people as a special case in regard to health and safety. However, smaller organisations that may recruit very few young people or perhaps only employ them on a sporadic basis may overlook the need to give them special attention.

Causal Factors

There are all kinds of reasons why young people face greater work-related risks including, for example:

  • General lack of skills and experience of the work, the tasks and the workplace
  • Lack of maturity often leading to a failure to recognise risks that may be second nature to their older, more experienced workmates
  • Lack of specific health and safety training, coupled with a natural tendency to ignore or not to treat seriously any training that is given. (more…)

Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM2007) – your questions answered

Monday, May 24th, 2010
If you are involved with any kind of non-domestic construction work then you are legally bound to comply with CDM2007. If it is a notifiable project then a CDM Co-ordinator and a Principal Contractor must be appointed for the work. Beyond legal compliance there is the high incidence of fatal and serious accidents on construction sites that the regulations are designed to address. Ignoring these statistics could result in expensive criminal investigations and prosecutions and do untold damage to your commercial reputation.

Subscribe to the Health, Safety and Environment Blog (www.healthsafetyenvironmentblog.co.uk) today (more…)

Health and Safety Policy

Monday, April 12th, 2010

The most senior person should define, document and endorse its Occupational Health & Safety (OH&S) Policy. They should ensure that the policy includes a commitment to:

  • Recognizing OH&S as an integral part of the company’ performance.
  • Achieving a high level of OH&S performance, with compliance to legal requirements as the minimum, and to continual cost-effective improvement in performance.
  • Provide adequate and appropriate resources to implement the policy.
  • The setting and publishing of OH&S objectives, even if only by internal notification.
  • Place the management of OH&S as a prime responsibility of line management, from most senior executive to first-line supervisory level.
  • Ensure its understanding, implementation and maintenance at all levels in the organisation.
  • Employee involvement and consultation to gain commitment to the policy and its implementation.
  • Periodic review of the policy, the management system and audit of compliance to policy.
  • Ensure that employees at all levels receive appropriate training and are competent to carry out their duties and responsibilities. (more…)

EDP Health, Safety and Environment Job Vacancies: UK DSE Assessors Positions

Friday, March 19th, 2010

EDP are looking for experienced part and full time DSE Assessors in UK and Ireland. Experience of using Cardinus assessment software is necessary as is experience of working in large office situations.

Salary will be commensurate with experience. The closing date for applications is 16th April 2010.

Apply in the first instance with your CV to cyril.barratt@edp-uk.com

Subscribe to the Health, Safety and Environment Blog (www.healthsafetyenvironmentblog.co.uk) today

Visit the EDP Health Safety & Environment Consultants website for more information about outsourcing Health and Safety , Health and Safety Consultants, and health and safety training courses: www.edp-uk.com

Construction Health and Safety Services

Monday, January 25th, 2010

The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM2007) cover all construction work in the UK and must be complied with whether you are a Client, Designer, CDM Co-ordinator or Contractor.

edpConstruction is a division of EDP HS&E Consultants Ltd and has been providing construction health and safety consultancy for over ten years to a variety of Clients; from small business right through to multinational corporations. (more…)

Involving Workers in Health and Safety

Monday, January 25th, 2010

Effective Health and Safety

How effective is your organisation in promoting health and safety amongst your workers?

Sadly, much of the effort we expend is wasted and fails to produce the results we are seeking. There may be many reasons for this including, for example, the often quoted lack of top-level commitment.

Whilst lack of commitment at management level may be true in some cases, there are plenty organisations in which the management are fully determined to improve health and safety yet feel they are fighting an uphill battle. (more…)