|
The
Training Courses
Other
Training Packages
ITSSAR
INSTRUCTOR TRAINING
Our own pages
| |
 |
|
Thomas Truck
Training Ltd
Thrapston
House, Huntingdon Rd, Thrapston Northamptonshire NN14 4NF |
PHONE +44 (0) 1832 731261
or 0845 644 8365 (local rate)
|
|
Link to other H&S
Pages 1 2
4 5 Lorry
Loader Letters
FAQ Sheet
3of5
|
|
A man has been airlifted to hospital with serious
injuries after he was trapped under a fork-lift truck. 1/0/03
The man was crushed under the vehicle as he worked in
a field at Peaks Down near the M4 in Wiltshire.
He is believed to have suffered pelvic injuries and
two fractured femurs.
He was freed by fire crews using two vehicle winches,
electrical hand tools and hand saws before being taken to hospital by
air ambulance.
A spokeswoman for Wiltshire Police said:¿ A man
employed by a construction firm in Burbage was working in a field at The
Gallops, north of Baydon became trapped under a fork lift truck.
"The man, who is from the Everleigh area of
Wiltshire, suffered serious injuries and had to be freed by firefighters
before being airlifted to the Great Western Hospital in Swindon."
She said the police were not involved, but that the Health and Safety
Executive had been informed and would conduct an investigation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk
( Link no longer available 27/02/07)
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article |
A Midland Company Hyperama,
incurred an fine of £12,000 after a worker had his leg broken when he
was in collision with a fork-lift truck being driven by a workmate who
had not received adequate training on the vehicle. The truck in question
was of the ride-on pallet truck type.
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article |
Agriculture - From experience
 Safety
through training and maintenance
Summary
A 44 years old lorry driver had to have both legs amputated
following an accident at a farm he visited to collect a load of
field beans. An employee at the farm had loaded some beans into
the bucket of a telescopic handler to transport them to the
waiting lorry. The bucket was overloaded and as it was
raised the telehandler fell forward, trapping the lorry driver
underneath the bucket. He was rescued and taken to hospital by
air ambulance, but had to have both legs amputated - one above
the knee and the other below.
Summary
A 44 years old lorry driver had to have both legs amputated
following an accident at a farm he visited to collect a load of
field beans. An employee at the farm had loaded some beans into
the bucket of a telescopic handler to transport them to the
waiting lorry. The bucket was overloaded and as it was
raised the telehandler fell forward, trapping the lorry driver
underneath the bucket. He was rescued and taken to hospital by
air ambulance, but had to have both legs amputated - one above
the knee and the other below.
Action
The investigation found that:
• the telehandler's Safe Working Load Indicator (SWLI) which
would have warned the driver that it was trying to move too
heavy a load was defective;
• the load chart in the cab was worn and extension markers on
the boom of the telehandler were missing;
• the farm employee had not been trained in the safe use of the
telehandler and had not seen or been shown the user manual or
any written instructions.
The farm owner was prosecuted under the Health and Safety at
Work etc. Act 1974 for failing to ensure the health and
safety of both the lorry driver any his own employees, and the
Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1992 for the
lack of adequate training. He was fined a total of £20,000 plus
costs of £1891.
Advice
This tragedy shows the importance of preventive maintenance
in avoiding injuries. A proper maintenance system would have
identified the defective SWLI and obscured safety information.
As well as making the machine safe, driver training is a
critical component of a safe system. With the right information
and training, the driver would have known the capacity of his
machine and that the safety device didn't work. Two simple
mistakes that cost a man his legs - could it happen to you?
http://www.hse.gov.uk/agriculture/experience/02.htm
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article
Updated 13.01.04
|
FALL
FROM HEIGHT RESULTS IN FRACTURED SKULL
On this occasion a Business Manager was seriously injured when he fell
from the cage seen here. The accident happened on April 26th 2000. He
sustained a fractured skull and suffered several fractured ribs. The
injured party was  attempting
to unplug a component cleaning machine from an overhead power socket by
standing inside the cage which was resting on the forks of the lift
truck. The wire cage suddenly tipped over causing him to fall 3 meters
to the ground. Newcastle Crown Court heard that at the time of the
accident it was common practice for employees to be raised up in cages
on the forks of a lift truck.
The company pleaded
guilty to a breach of section 2 (1) of the Health and safety at Work Act
and was fined £15,000 along with the full prosecution costs of £2711.75.
The company have since reviewed their procedures for working at heights
and provided hoist trucks to allow the job to be done safely in future.
The company was
fined £3000 under section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act
together with a further £1000 for a breach of Construction and Loler
Regulations and ordered to pay the full prosecution costs of £1000.
Source: Safety
Management Magazine, published by the British Safety Council
No Responsibility accepted
for the accuracy of this article |
|
HSE GUIDANCE NOTE PM28 - WORKING PLATFORMS ON FORK-LIFT TRUCKS
INTRODUCTION
1 HSE
Guidance Note PM28 (PM28) has been substantially revised in consultation
with the British Industrial Truck Association to take account of
developments in the design of platforms and the types of trucks with
which they are commonly used. A copy of the new version, ie PM28 (2nd
edition), was published by HSE in March 2000. It replaces the previous
version, first published in 1981 and reprinted in 1985 and 1991.
CONTENT
2 PM28
(2nd edition), provides guidance on:
-
legal requirements covering the design, use and thorough examination of
platforms,
- the
circumstances when it is appropriate to use working platforms on fork
lift trucks (FLTs),
-
design requirements for platforms,
- the
selection of appropriate platform and truck combinations,
- safe
systems of work to be employed when using platforms.
3 PM28
(2nd edition) provides additional guidance on the design of platforms
and the information which needs to be supplied with them. It also gives
additional advice on the types of trucks with which platforms can be
used and how to select appropriate truck/platform combinations.
GUARD
RAILS AND TOE BOARDS
4 The
dimensions given in PM28 (2nd edition), paragraph 18 for guard rails and
toe boards is different to that given in the Construction (Health,
Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996, see below:-
PM28
(2nd edition) C(HS&W) Regs 1996
Height of top rail
(to the top of the rail) 1000mm minimum
1100mm maximum 910mm minimum
Height of toe board 100mm minimum 150mm minimum
Intermediate rail Equally spaced between the top of the toe board and
the underside of the the top rail. No unprotected gap exceeding 470mm
between any guard rail, toe-board, barrier or similar protection.
5 The
dimensions in PM28 (2nd edition) for guard rails on working platforms
are the same as those for guard rails on mobile machinery in
construction. For example, similar dimensions are given in BS EN474 part
1 for guard rails on earth moving machinery.
6
There is a difference between the toe board height given in PM28 (2nd
edition) and the C(HS&W) Regulations 1996. The different toe board
heights are unlikely to be a problem because the 150mm height required
by the C(HS&W) Regulations 1996 provides for the stacking/storage of
objects, e.g. scaffold poles and couplers, on working platforms. Working
platforms covered by PM28 (2nd edition) should not be used in the same
way. They are intended for occasional, temporary access to height. As
such, they would be likely to be misused if objects were stacked or
stored on them. Nevertheless, tools and other small objects could be
knocked off the floors of working platforms on fork-lift trucks so a toe
board is required and a 100mm minimum toe board height is considered to
be adequate for this purpose.
GUIDANCE
PUBLICATION
7 PM28
'Working platforms on fork-lift trucks' (ISBN 0 7176 1233 3), priced £6.00
is available from :
HSE
Books
PO Box 1999
Sudbury
Suffolk
CO10 2WA
Telephone:
01787 881165
Fax: 01787 313995
|
|
HSE GIVES ADVICE ON HOW TO
REPORT HEALTH AND SAFETY INCIDENTS
HSE
has issued an updated leaflet giving employers advice on how to report
health and safety incidents - and how to use the HSE’s new incident
contact centre. how
to use the HSE’s new incident contact centre.All
employers have a legal duty to report the following work-related health
and safety incidents:
- deaths;
- major
injuries;
- over-three-day
injuries, where an employee or self-employed person has an accident
resulting in them being off work - or unable to do their work - for
more than three days;
- injuries
to members of the public that require them to go to hospital;
- work-related
diseases; and
- dangerous
occurrences which could potentially have resulted in a reportable
injury.
The
incident contact centre (ICC) provides a single point of contact for all
employers in England, Scotland and Wales to use, whatever their
business. Reports can be made by telephone — the quickest and most
straightforward method -or via the internet, e-mail, fax or post.
RIDDOR reporting: what the
incident contact centre can do
for you is an updated,
handy-sized guide on the correct procedures for reporting incidents.
Copies
of RI000R reporting: what the
incident contact centre can do for you MISC3 10
(rev I) are available free from HSE Books
|
|
The
Civil Procedure Rules
require a significant change in the way accident
claims are investigated before, during and after litigation in England
and Wales. The main aims are to speed up the overall process and to
enable the court to deal with cases justly. Here
we discuss pre-action protocols,
the claim letter, the statement of truth and disclosure documents and
statements together with the
implications for liability claims and insurers
Dealing
with a case justly include
ensuring
that parties (claimant/ defendant) are on an equal footing
saving
expense
dealing
with the case in ways which are proportionate to
-
the
amount of money involved
-
the
importance of the case
-
the
complexity of the issues
-
the
financial position of the parties involved
ensuring
that each case is dealt with expeditiously and fairly.
allotting
to each case an
Pre-action
protocols
The
development of pre-action protocols build on and increase the benefits
of early but informed settlement which genuinely satisfy both parties to
the dispute. In essence, this is an attempt to
resolve the dispute before
court
proceedings are even commenced,
thus minimising both cost and court time.
The
aims of the pre-action protocol are to: identify issues at an early
stage, reduce the need for expensive
litigation, promote a better exchange of information
between parties in dispute, ensure a thorough accident
investigation has taken place, and enable cases to be settled fairly.
The personal injury pre-action protocol sets out the following
stages:
Stage
1 Letter of Claim
Stage
2 Reply/Acknowledgement
Stage
3 Investigation
Stage
4 Proceedings
Stage
5
Statement
of Truth
Stage
6 Disclosure of Documents
Stage
7 Disclosure Statement.
The
letter of claim (Stage
1) is
an indication from the claimant person that they wish to claim damages.
The letter of claim contains a clear summary of the facts on which the
claim is based. It also includes details of
injuries and financial loss suffered by
the claimant, and asks for details of the defendant’s insurer.
The
defendant must send an acknowledgement
(
Stage2)to the letter
of claim within 21 days. stating details of both insurer and legal
representative. The defendant should not reply directly. but
proceed via the insurance broker/legal representative. Failure to
respond will allow the claimant to commence court proceeding immediately
without penalty.
A
decision on liability is required 3 months after the acknowledgement of
the Letter of Claim, hence the defendant
has a maximum of three months to undertake a thorough,
objective
investigation
(
Stage 3)of the claim
in order to produce the evidence necessary
to back the decision on liability.
No
hard evidence =
No
defense. It
is up to the defendant, together with legal representative and insurer
to decide whether
liability is admitted in full, in part, or
denied. Reasons for denying liability must be given.
In
essence, this means an end to the procrastination over whether to fight
or settle the claim, but it also means that defendants need to ensure
that all necessary documentation is in place and makes a proper
denial of liability via detailed explanation and the provision of
supporting documentation, many
cases will proceed
no further, unless the claimant wishes to proceed.
Once
proceedings
(Stage 4)commence,
in most cases there is a time limit of 28 days for dealing with the defense.
The defense document should comply with the following requirements:
-
statement
of which facts are admitted
-
statement
of which facts are denied, giving reasons
-
statement
of defendant’s own version of events
-
identification
of which facts the claimant is required to prove.
The
defense needs to be verified by a
number of statements
of truth (Stage
5): The
defendant believes that the facts stated in this defense are true
As
the statement of truth is an important legal document, it is advisable
that it should be drafted by the defendants legal representative, and
thereafter signed by the person or persons authorised by the
organisation to approve defences and make decisions on liability.
It
is also important to note that liability for truthfulness rests with the
individual signing the statement.
If the signatory does not honestly believe the
statement to be true, then the person signing it can be liable
for proceedings for contempt of court, which in extreme cases could lead
to a custodial sentence.
The
aim is to ensure that all the relevant information is made available as
soon as possible to all parties.
The
required documents are listed
below. The timescale for disclosure
of documents/statement
(Stage 6/7) under the pre-action
protocol is within three months.
Those
documents which must be disclosed include those which:
-
the
defendant needs to rely on to prove the case
-
adversely
affect their own case (ie claimant and
defendant)
-
adversely
affect the other party’s case (eg disprove the claimant’s case)
-
support
the other party’s case.
The
onus is clearly on the defendant
to ensure that any of the documents requested under disclosure can be
obtained quickly, and that they are up to date.
In
the case of a workplace claim, the following is the standard list of
documents to be disclosed:
-
accident
book entry
-
internal
accident report form
-
entry
in on-site medical record
-
first
aider’s report
-
supervisor’s
accident report
-
safety
representative’s accident
report
-
any
RIDDOR report
-
relevant
health and safety committee
minutes
-
DSS
reports
-
documents
relating to earlier
accidents/incidents
-
earnings
information concerning the
claimant
In
addition there are a number of other documents mentioned in the Rules
that may be requested by the claimant.
Many of these documents relate to statutory
requirements under a range of health and safety legislation
including:
Risk
assessment documentation, company
policies & procedures and employee
training records relating to:
Management
of Health and Safety at Work Regulations,
Workplace
(Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations,
Provision
and Use of Work Equipment Regulations,
Personal
Protective Equipment at Work Regulations,
Manual
Handling Operations Regulations,
Health
and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations,
Control
of Substances Hazardous to
Health Regulations,
Construction
(Design and Management)
Regulations,
Lifting
Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations,
Noise
at Work Regulations.
Construction
(Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations,
Three
levels of cases
Under
the Civil Procedure Rules, cases are allocated to one of three levels:
Small
track-
have
a ceiling of £5000, including injury up to £1000.
Fast
track-
cases
between £5000 and £15000 with flexibility around the top end if the
case is straightforward.
Fast
track -
cases
generally proceed quickly to a hearing, which is usually limited to
one day.
Multi
track-
cases
above £15000 or those which feature more complex issues.
Multi-track-
cases
involve proactive court
management.
Under
the new Rules, prompt notification of accidents is
essential and a letter of claim should be sent to insurers
with delay
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article |
|
Death of a
Seventeen Year old
Seventeen year old Jonathan Stroud, an employee of
Eddie Stobart Ltd, was crushed to death whilst operating a 'man up'
forklift truck, which has the capability of lifting a driver up to 14m
in the air. Environmental Health Officer Peter Minhinnett told
Nottingham Crown Court that Mr Strout was navigating between two
stacking shelves, which gave him just 140mm clearance, and there were
goods overhanging his pallet. The prosecution said it is believed the
accident happened when the overhanging goods collided with the goods on
the forklift causing 3/4 tonne of aluminium foil to fall down onto the
forklifts cab.
Mr Minhinnett said the accident had happened exactly one year after
the company had been officially warned to review its risk assessments.
Mr Minhinnett said "they had no risk assessment to show that they
tried to prevent overhanging loads. The whole system was designed to
make sure the load fitted on the footprint of the pallet." Eddie
Stobart Ltd pleaded guilty to failing to safeguard the health, Safety
and welfare of one of their employees and received a £70,000
fine. The company also pleaded guilty to failing to complete a six month
inspection of the forklift and fined accordingly. In addition the Court
ordered the company to pay over £81,000
in costs. 2000
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this
article |
The Health & Safety Law
poster
Isbn 0 7176 24935 Price £7.50
Out with the old and in with the new
|
  This
must be replaced by 1st July
2000
Remember to fill out all the relevant Addresses before you put it to
the work force.
To find out more and get a copy of the new leaflet then just click on
the link http://www.open.gov.uk/hse/pubns/law.pdf
From
today (1 October 1999) there is a new version of the statutory 'Health and
Safety Law' poster and leaflet which all employers need to provide for their
workforce.
Employers have a legal duty to display the poster in a prominent position in
each workplace or alternatively provide a copy of the leaflet outlining
British health and safety laws to each of their employees.
Richard Clifton, Head of the Health & Safety Executive's (HSE's) Policy
Unit, said:
"The poster is a simple and efficient way for employers to provide
basic information about health and safety to their employees. The existing
version has been in use since 1989 but required updating to take account of
European directives and the Health and Safety Commission's Programme of
modernising and simplifying the law.
"The revised text now focuses on the modern framework of general duties
supplemented by the basics of health and safety management, including
employers' duties to consult employees or their representatives on health
and safety."
The poster includes two new sections which will allow employers to
personalise the information. There is now a box for the names and locations
of safety representatives, and a similar one for details of competent people
appointed by the employer and their health and safety responsibilities.
"Employees need to know what the arrangements are for consultation in
their workplace, and I hope employers will add these details to the poster
and keep the information up-to-date.
If there are trade union-appointed safety representatives in the workplace,
employers could perhaps agree that the union(s) concerned keep that box
up-to-date". Mr Clifton said.
Employers can begin to use the revised poster and leaflet from today,
although the existing versions can still be used up to 30 June 2000. From 1
July 2000, only the revised versions should be used.
No Responsibility accepted
for the accuracy of this article
|
|
New amendments to the "Six Pack" regulations
Changes to the Management of
Health and Safety at Work Regulations (1992) were published on 29th
December 1999. The main thrust of these is that employers should not
rely on outside assistance but instead use employees from their own
organization in order to conduct risk assessments at their premises.
The UK Government was forced to amend the regulations after the EC
raised concerns over the UK's implementation of the original European
health and safety Framework Directive. Apparently the original
regulations did not explicitly outline the Directive's requirements for
appointing competent persons and also making arrangements for contacting
the Emergency Services.
The 1999 amendments clarify specific requirements and introduce some new
legal duties on Employers. As a consequence a new Approved Code of
Practice which has been completely revised was published at the end of
March 2000. The new ACOP makes it clear that Employers should:
Whenever possible, employ a competent person from their own
workforce
Use that person to carry out risk assessments required by the
regulations
Use external assistance only when there is no competent worker
within the organisation
In some cases there will be a need to consult outside experts and
this move is not precluded by the ACOP but Employers should make sure
that anyone they appoint as a competent advisor is capable of applying
the principles of risk assessment and prevention to the workplace. As an
example, a doctor who is appointed should have sufficient experience and
experience in occupational health matters.
As a result of the above an Employer cannot claim that they only
breached the law because of a failure by an employee or person appointed
to give competent advice and assistance. The other main aspect of the
ACOP is that Employers now need to clarify how emergency services can be
contacted although in many circumstances this may only mean making sure
that employees know the necessary telephone numbers to call.
The HSE have said that they will take account of the circumstances of
each particular case before deciding whether any enforcing action is to
be taken.
The ACOP also brought home for the first time the concept of three
stages of training which even today are defined as follows:
Basic Training - A training course followed by a test
Specific Job Training - Knowledge of the workplace and handling
attachments
Familiarization training - Working on the job under close
supervision
The new Approved Code Of Practice was published by the Health and
Safety Commission late in 1999 and there are changes compared to the old
ACOP mainly to incorporate the new LOLER and PUWER legislation. The Two
main changes that stand out are:
Training should be provided for all rider operated trucks
Persons undergoing such training should ideally be aged 18 years
There are several other changes which are of a relatively minor
nature and which are not mentioned here. Copies of this publication can
be obtained from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk.
|
|
Business
Manager was seriously injured
On this occasion a Business
Manager was seriously injured when he fell from the cage seen here. The
accident happened on April 26th 2000. He sustained a fractured skull and
suffered several fractured ribs. The injured party was attempting to
unplug a component cleaning machine from an overhead power socket by
standing inside the cage which was resting on the forks of the lift
truck. The wire cage suddenly tipped over causing him to fall 3 meters
to the ground. Newcastle Crown Court heard that at the time of the
accident it was common practice for employees to be raised up in cages
on the forks of a lift truck.
The company pleaded guilty to a
breach of section 2 (1) of the Health and safety at Work Act and was
fined £15,000 along with the full prosecution costs of £2711.75. The
company have since reviewed their procedures for working at heights and
provided hoist trucks to allow the job to be done safely in future
Acknowledgements for these pictures to Safety Management Magazine,
published by the British Safety Council |
 Penalties
for Health and Safety Offences as of Jan 1st 2001
Lower courts
For a failure to comply
with an improvement or prohibition notice, or court remedy order. A fine
of up to £20000, or 6 months' imprisonment or both.
For breaches of Sections 2-6 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 A
fine of up to £20000
For other breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act not specified
above, or of relevant statutory provisions under the Act. A fine of up
to £5000.
Higher courts
For failure to comply
with an improvement or prohibition notice, or a court remedy order. 2
years' imprisonment, or an unlimited fine or both.
For contravening licence requirements or provisions relating to
explosives. 2 years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine or both.
For breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 or of relevant
statutory provisions under the Act. Unlimited fines.
In addition it is worth noting the draconian powers afforded to Factory
Inspectors and Environmental Health Officers as follows:
- To enter premises at any
reasonable time
- To take a Constable with
him/her if necessary
- To take with him/her
another authorised person
- To examine, investigate
and require premises to be left undisturbed
- To take samples subject
to leaving a compatible sample
- To dismantle or test any
dangerous article or substance
- To require information,
facilities and assistance
- To require the
production of any relevant books and documents
- To issue improvement or
prohibition notices
- To initiate prosecutions
- To seize, destroy or
render harmless any article or substance which is a source of
imminent danger
|
| ONE THOUSAND WORKERS INJURED
EACH MONTH'
The Health and Safety Executive calculates that there are
annually over 20,000 injury accidents - in which there is an
expectation of 112
fatalities - involving fork lift trucks.
Forty-five per cent of all injury accidents are caused by a truck
in collision with a pedestrian and a further ten per cent due to a
faulty truck. Some twenty-six people
die as a result of trucks overturning.
There are no official statistics which show the annual cost to the
industry and in turn the customer, of fork lift truck accidents.
But records show that injury accidents fall mainly into three
groups:-
Fatalities
Maiming; such as the loss of toes or fingers
Minor
hurts.
The costs of a fatality to an operator around 40 years
old is in excess of £100,000. A maiming accident will be
between £10,000 and £20,000, but in certain cases, of course, much
more. Smaller injury claims are up to £5,000. When cases are
contested, law costs are prohibitive. A recent example was where an
award of £20,000 carried legal costs of £83,000.
If the average cost of an injury accident is £10,000, then the
cost of injury accidents is £135,000,000 annually - plus the further
burden of non-injury accident damage to goods and warehouse fittings
and fabric, lost working time, truck downtime etc. This, of course, is
ignoring the incalculable grief and suffering to the victims and their
relatives.
The above information has been researched with HSE,
CITB, RTITB Services Limited and AITT-ITSSAR.
No Responsibility accepted
for the accuracy of this article
|
|
Untrained forklift driver killed
labourer 6 March 2002
A construction firm and its director have been prosecuted by
the HSE for their part in the accidental death of a labourer, Kevin Moyle, in
August 2000.
Julian Austin, a director of the firm, instructed an untrained and untested
employee to drive a truck. The firm pleaded guilty to a breach of the Health and
Safety at Work Act, and was fined £40,000 with £8,799 costs. Mr Austin was
fined £20,000 after pleading guilty to breaching the same Act, because he
instructed an untrained employee to drive the truck.
HSE investigating inspector, Mike Sarson, said: "Mr Moyle's
death highlights the need for employers to use only trained and licensed
forklift truck drivers. Any employer, director or manager that allows a person
who is untrained to drive workplace machinery increases the risk of an accident,
which could result in injury or death."
The HSE has a free guide for employers – 'Managing vehicle safety in the
workplace'. The guide warns employers that they need to carry out a risk
assessment to ensure the safety and welfare of their workers, and explains in
detail what this typically involves.
http://www.workplacelaw.net/display.php?resource_id=2037&keywords=forklift
|
| Use of Contractors...a
joint responsibility
HSE
has published a guidance leaflet aimed at clarifying the health and
safety responsibilities of both parties in situations where employers (ie
clients) bring in contractors.
Clients
and contractors are not always clear about who is responsible for health
and safety. Use of contractors -
a joint
responsibility explains that
in any client/contractor relationships in either the public or private
sector, both parties will have responsibilities under health and safety
law. The leaflet sets out general guidance on what both parties need to
do to comply with their health and safety responsibilities.
Under
‘What you need to do’, the guidance covers identifying the job,
selecting a suitable contractor and subcontractor, assessing the risks
of the work, providing information, instruction and training,
co-operation and co-ordination, consulting the workforce and management
and supervision.
In
welcoming the guidance, Chair of HSC, Bill Callaghan commented: “This
guidance is timely given the growth in contracting in recent years. It
clarifies the general health and safety responsibilities of both clients
and contractors in a single document. Where work is contracted out,
contracts are sometimes used to pass on responsibilities. However,
health and safety responsibilities cannot be passed on. Both parties
have duties, and co-operation between them is essential if health and
safety is to be properly managed. All workers, whether employees or
contractors, should enjoy the same high health and safety standard.”
The
leaflet includes case studies showing what can happen when things go
wrong, and gives details of where further guidance can be obtained.
The
guidance does not apply to agency or mobile workers (HSE will issue
separate guidance about these workers later), nor does it
apply
to deliveries to clients’ premises or work activities covered by the
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 (CDM). Where CDM
applies, clients, contractors and others have specific legal
responsibilities.
Use
of contractors —
a joint responsibility INDG368
is available free as a single copy or in priced packs of ten (ISBN 0
7176 2566 4) from HSE Books. The leaflet is also available via the HSE
website
http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg368.pdf
No Responsibility accepted
for the accuracy of this article |
|
Have you got more than 5 Employees??
Then you need one of these.
Statement
of Health and Safety Policy
You will find one for your company here this will tell you how to
write one and give you a pre-formed statement you may wish to amend to
suite your particular
firm. Click Here |
|
Need to talk on a CONFIDENTIAL
line about what is happening at your work place??
Phone HSE INFO LINE on 0541 545500.
It is strictly confidential
|
|
