Notices
Non Scooby Related Anything Non-Scooby related

Q on Health & Safety at work

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06 August 2008, 01:22 PM
  #1  
47 NAT
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
 
47 NAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: In a village in Hants
Posts: 1,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default Q on Health & Safety at work

I know there's a few knowledgeable people from different trades on here, so I thought I'd fire this acrcoss as some of you may know the answer or been down this road before....


If a Method statement & Risk Assessment states, that all people working on a site will be wearing the relevant PPE eg: steel toe capped boots, high visibility jacket/vest, safety helmets, gloves, glasses, ( Do weatherproofs apply to working outside when its raining and are they essential?). Would the Employer/Site Manager be at fault if they had not checked that all employees had the relevant PPE or training to work on the site doing that task beforehand?

Would or should it be the case that they shouldn't be allowed on site say, if they didn't have steel toe capped boots on?

Also if the Employers were aware that one of the employees had no PPE or training and allowed them to carry on working either knowing this and/or turning a blind eye to this, would they be at fault if someone did have an accident on site?
Old 06 August 2008, 01:27 PM
  #2  
spireite
BANNED
 
spireite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 47 NAT
I know there's a few knowledgeable people from different trades on here, so I thought I'd fire this acrcoss as some of you may know the answer or been down this road before....


If a Method statement & Risk Assessment states, that all people working on a site will be wearing the relevant PPE eg: steel toe capped boots, high visibility jacket/vest, safety helmets, gloves, glasses, ( Do weatherproofs apply to working outside when its raining and are they essential?). Would the Employer/Site Manager be at fault if they had not checked that all employees had the relevant PPE or training to work on the site doing that task beforehand?

Would or should it be the case that they shouldn't be allowed on site say, if they didn't have steel toe capped boots on?

Also if the Employers were aware that one of the employees had no PPE or training and allowed them to carry on working either knowing this and/or turning a blind eye to this, would they be at fault if someone did have an accident on site?
THE PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT AT WORK REGULATIONS 1992 ....
Old 06 August 2008, 02:15 PM
  #3  
A Spider from Mars
Scooby Regular
 
A Spider from Mars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 47 NAT
1. Do weatherproofs apply to working outside when its raining and are they essential?
If the person is required to work outside (in inclement weather) then yes wet weather gear would be considered as PPE. This would need to be risk assessed (HASAWA & Man Regs) and if found necessary supplied by the contractor/client.

he Employer/Site Manager be at fault if they had not checked that all employees had the relevant PPE or training to work on the site doing that task beforehand?
Yes

should it be the case that they shouldn't be allowed on site say, if they didn't have steel toe capped boots on?
Yes

Also if the Employers were aware that one of the employees had no PPE or training and allowed them to carry on working either knowing this and/or turning a blind eye to this, would they be at fault if someone did have an accident on site?
Yes

Hope that helps

Paul
Old 06 August 2008, 02:19 PM
  #4  
john_s
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
john_s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Preston, Lancs.
Posts: 2,977
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 47 NAT
I know there's a few knowledgeable people from different trades on here, so I thought I'd fire this acrcoss as some of you may know the answer or been down this road before....

If a Method statement & Risk Assessment states, that all people working on a site will be wearing the relevant PPE eg: steel toe capped boots, high visibility jacket/vest, safety helmets, gloves, glasses, ... Would the Employer/Site Manager be at fault if they had not checked that all employees had the relevant PPE or training to work on the site doing that task beforehand?
Both the employer and site manager would be liable to be held at fault for that.

Originally Posted by 47 NAT
( Do weatherproofs apply to working outside when its raining and are they essential?).
If employees are expected to work in the rain, there is likely to be a risk to them (they get wet, cold, more likely to make mistakes or have an accident) or to others, so weather protection would be considered PPE and should be provided by the employer.

Originally Posted by 47 NAT
Would or should it be the case that they shouldn't be allowed on site say, if they didn't have steel toe capped boots on?
Like the signs on some buildings sites say: "No hard hat, no boots, no job."

If someone isn't wearing the correct PPE, then they should not be on site.

Should anything happen, the first question asked will be "Why did this employee not have boots on when the MS / RA says they are required?"

Originally Posted by 47 NAT
Also if the Employers were aware that one of the employees had no PPE or training and allowed them to carry on working either knowing this and/or turning a blind eye to this, would they be at fault if someone did have an accident on site?
Very much so.
Old 06 August 2008, 02:26 PM
  #5  
bugeyeandy
Scooby Regular
 
bugeyeandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: West London
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Old 06 August 2008, 02:43 PM
  #6  
spireite
BANNED
 
spireite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 47 NAT
I know there's a few knowledgeable people from different trades on here, so I thought I'd fire this acrcoss as some of you may know the answer or been down this road before....

If a Method statement & Risk Assessment states, that all people working on a site will be wearing the relevant PPE eg: steel toe capped boots, high visibility jacket/vest, safety helmets, gloves, glasses, ... Would the Employer/Site Manager be at fault if they had not checked that all employees had the relevant PPE or training to work on the site doing that task beforehand?

Both the employer and site manager would be liable to be held at fault for that.


you will find if the employee as signed onto the RA and MS he is liable
Old 06 August 2008, 04:58 PM
  #7  
47 NAT
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
 
47 NAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: In a village in Hants
Posts: 1,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Thanks a lot for your info, much appreciated

I asked the question for 2 reasons and mainly because prevention is better than cure
Old 06 August 2008, 05:01 PM
  #8  
47 NAT
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
 
47 NAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: In a village in Hants
Posts: 1,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by spireite
Quote:
you will find if the employee as signed onto the RA and MS he is liable
You've lost me on that bit, care to explain
Old 06 August 2008, 05:08 PM
  #9  
spireite
BANNED
 
spireite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 47 NAT
You've lost me on that bit, care to explain
General duties of employees at work.

7. It shall be the duty of every employee while at work
  • to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work; and
  • as regards any duty or requirement imposed on his employer or any other person by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions, to co-operate with him so far as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be performed or complied with.
Duty not to interfere with or misuse things provided pursuant to certain provisions.

8. No person shall intentionally or recklessly interfere with or misuse anything provided in the interests of health, safety or welfare in pursuance of any of the relevant statutory provisions.
Old 06 August 2008, 05:16 PM
  #10  
47 NAT
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
 
47 NAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: In a village in Hants
Posts: 1,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Got you now, thanks
Old 06 August 2008, 05:21 PM
  #11  
spireite
BANNED
 
spireite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 47 NAT
Got you now, thanks

although he should not have got past the site induction without himself or his company not being able to provide his qualifications or training records
Old 06 August 2008, 07:03 PM
  #12  
PaulC72
Scooby Regular
 
PaulC72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: RIP Tam.
Posts: 5,108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

At our firm they have just made the global statement across the whole business that no one is to enter a construction site without PPE, beit office staff or site staff, subcontractors, this even stretches to any official visitors or clients representitives or say it was a supermarket it would be the shop workers too if they had to enter the site for any reason.

Site PPE steel toecaps shoes/boots, Hardhat, High Vis Vest/Coat

And that goes even for meetings in the site cabin.

The first site manager who didn't follow the rule & the contract manager who also let it go, got told off, the next one will be sacked.
Old 06 August 2008, 08:03 PM
  #13  
+Doc+
Scooby Senior
 
+Doc+'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sunny Ilson
Posts: 4,119
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

I think someone needs to take a look at the cowboys throwing some wooden houses up next to us.
10ft off the ground, no hi vis, no hard hats, no scaffolding.
Scary stuff.
Old 06 August 2008, 08:19 PM
  #14  
PaulC72
Scooby Regular
 
PaulC72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: RIP Tam.
Posts: 5,108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Just call the HSE, they love things like that
Old 06 August 2008, 08:20 PM
  #15  
spireite
BANNED
 
spireite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by PaulC72
Just call the HSE, they love things like that
They're all busy doing training at our place .
Old 07 August 2008, 08:44 AM
  #16  
47 NAT
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
 
47 NAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: In a village in Hants
Posts: 1,708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by spireite
They're all busy doing training at our place .

Thats handy to know
Am I ok to PM you?
Don't worry, I won't pretend to be best of friends afterwards, swamp you with messages, telephone calls and tell the whole world we're best of buddies

Could do with just picking your brains a bit more off this bb.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
38
17 July 2016 10:43 PM
alex_00s
Drivetrain
2
26 September 2015 06:07 PM
Littleted
Computer & Technology Related
0
25 September 2015 08:44 AM
mdb8899
General Technical
5
20 September 2015 05:48 PM
aaron_ions
General Technical
1
17 September 2015 10:42 AM



Quick Reply: Q on Health & Safety at work



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:06 PM.