Stagesafe

News for 2006

December

A fall during maintenance work in May last year at a Park Lane hotel could easily have killed a welder fabricator. He was replacing the grating over a footpath level exterior light well at the Grosvenor House Hotel in Westminster when it failed beneath his feet, dropping him more than 3m to the bottom of the light well, breaking his neck.

Employer McFarlane Telfer Ltd of Maidenhead, Berkshire, was fined £5,000, with £5,556 costs, at City of London Magistrates' Court, after having been deemed to have breached r.4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 in the circumstances of the incident.

Comment:
"The risks of working at height are well-known. Falls from height remain one of the most common causes of death and injury in industry. Mr ______ suffered serious injuries and this incident could have resulted in his death. This case highlights once again the absolute necessity for work at height to be properly planned, and for equipment such as crash decks or scaffold towers to be used where appropriate." - HSE Inspector.

An apprentice whose boss believed he had resigned after telling him where to shove his job has been awarded more than £4,000 compensation by an Employment Tribunal, the Glasgow Evening Times reports.

Apprentice spray painter Stephen Welsh claimed employer Raymond Barnes fired him in November 2005. However Barnes maintained that Welsh had resigned not been sacked.

The Glasgow Employment Tribunal heard that Welsh had a poor attendance record and would often not turn up for work on Mondays but would work the rest of the week.

He had been diagnosed with mild asthma in December 2004 something of which Barnes was aware of.

When Welsh arrived at work late after being off with a chest infection he was told his attendance was not good enough and that he should go find another job. At that stage Walsh told Barnes to 'shove his job'.

Barnes told the tribunal that Welsh was prone to repeated absence and poor timekeeping and had been given several warnings and advised to reconsider his choice of working environment

Despite saying that there was a "very good chance" Welsh would have been dismissed in any event for either poor absence or poor timekeeping or a mixture of both the tribunal found the evidence of the firm unconvincing and awarded Welsh £4,000.

Companies that are organising firework displays this year must ensure that they are not only complying with relevant health and safety legislation but also the Fireworks Act 2003 and the Fireworks Regulations 2004.

The new Fireworks Act 2003 has put a framework into place to enable the Government to address a range of firework issues where present legislation falls short. The Act gave rise to the Fireworks Regulations 2004, which have introduced a number of limited prohibitions on the importation, sale, possession and use of fireworks.

Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 any company holding a fireworks display has a duty of care to both employees and anyone affected by the event. Those affected can include spectators, nearby residents and the general public.

A fundamental requirement is for companies to carry out an appropriate assessment of the health and safety risks to employees and members of the public. Businesses must demonstrate that they have taken all possible steps to minimise the risks to the safety of their employees and those affected by the event.

Organisers need to consider factors such as:

Where the organiser is not an expert in setting up and firing fireworks they should seek the services of a competent display operator.

November

Hot on the heels of a DCMS sponsored survey into the impact of the UK Licensing Act on live music, The Morning Advertiser has said that more clubs and pubs are claiming that licensing reforms are damaging live music in pubs. Hosts agree that staging music is more difficult now because it is easier for residents to interfere.

One landlord reported that his licence is being reviewed after two residents complained to the council about noise using their powers under the new Licensing Act. The landlord stopped staging live bands at his pub six months ago to appease the two residents - and takings have halved on Saturday nights. Another said they had stopped parties and DJ events after a complaint from just one resident adding that the new laws, red tape and the imminent smoking ban would all damage the pub business.

There is also some concern that the DCMS poll will not be effective. One respondent is reported as saying "I've just had MORI call me on this survey. As ever the effectiveness of the poll is dependent on the quality of questions asked, and it would also help if the questioner had some inkling of the subject matter. (Not necessarily her fault), but when DCMS have divided "live music" into about seven sections (as per the regulated entertainment and the provisions for making the same), and you are asked a "yes / no"question on the 2 in the bar subject - which for us was not applicable anyway you can easily see a recipe for total confusion. Sadly I don't have a great deal of confidence on a rational conclusion to this poll."

Pollsters MORI will be contacting 2,000 outlets over the next two months. Venues will be asked how they coped with the licensing application process, how life has changed now the public entertainment licences (PELs) have gone and how they have been affected by the end of the two in a bar rule. They will also be asked about how pubs are using Temporary Events Notices (TENs) to stage live music. The survey is part of the DCMS' Live Music Forum and findings will be reported to Government as part of the forum's final report later this year.

Members of a historic town band are furious after being told they couldn't play 'Jingle Bells' in their Christmas shows unless they paid for a licence - because the song has no religious content.

Callington Town Band in Cornwall, a registered charity, is having to fork out £21 each for seven temporary licences to cover their Christmas programme after Caradon District Council's licensing department told the band it would fall foul of the Licensing Act 2003, which came in to force this April, if it played anything other than religion based carols during its seven Christmas concerts.

The council said a temporary entertainment notice (TEN) was needed every time entertainment was provided in venues without public licences. That means festive favourites like 'Jingle Bells', 'White Christmas' and 'Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer' need a licence whereas Christmas carols which are considered religious music do not.

In London, Lambeth Council has revoked the licence of a Brixton nightclub where police discovered two loaded handguns and drugs during a raid earlier this month. The council's licensing sub-committee took the decision to revoke the licence for the J-Bar in Stockwell Road, Brixton, at a meeting this week. The meeting was called after police raided the bar on Sunday October 8, discovering drugs and two loaded handguns. Using new powers granted under the Licensing Act 2003, within days the police had made an application to the local magistrates' court that the club to be closed in the interests of public safety and to prevent crime and disorder.

October

A Southport company has been fined a total of £5,000 and ordered to pay full costs of £2,145 after pleading guilty to two criminal charges brought by the HSE after two teenage employees were found standing 2.5 metres in the air on a pallet on the raised forks of a fork lift truck.

Michael Pollock and Scott Whitehead were both 18 at the time of the incident on 30 November last year and were new employees of the company in question. The company pleaded guilty to a charge under Regulation 3(1) of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 in that it failed to carry out a suitable risk assessment, for which it was fined £3,000. It was also found guilty of a charge under Regulation 6(3) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005 in that it failed to take suitable measures to prevent people falling a distance liable to cause personal injury, for which it was fined £2,000.

HSE Inspector Gill Chambers commented: "The two young men were raised to an approximate height of 2.5 metres on a pallet on the forks to unfasten the cover on a container which had been left on a trailer. "If the crane on site had been used to place the container on the ground the employees could have safely accessed the top with the use of the steps provided.

"The two young men risked death or serious injury from this unsafe practice. Between 1997 and 2001, the HSE investigated 54 falls above 2m from lift trucks: 87% of these involved fatal or major injuries."

The HSE has targeted driving at work as one of the key areas of risk among businesses who require employees to drive as part of their work. The HSE is now pushing to prosecute companies for work-related accidents, and to take preventative measures to manage risk by journey planning, driver selection and training, and rigorous systems for vehicle maintenance - including private vehicles used for business.

The new Corporate Manslaughter Act 2006 has been slated for introduction in 2007, bringing with it onerous responsibilities for directors and senior managers to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees and others. The effect of the legislation will be to make it easier to bring companies - and individuals within companies - to account for serious management failings, with potential punishments including imprisonment of directors.

The HSE is warning businesses that use lifting tackle that they need to change their inspection processes, following an investigation into the death of a construction worker killed by a falling load. The findings raise an issue in respect of components that are not visible unless dismantled.

Sam Ball, a 23 year-old construction worker, died at a Hertfordshire construction site in January 2002 after he was fatally injured when a concrete beam that fell from a mobile crane struck him. Forensic investigation by the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) established that a pin forming part of the lifting tackle had fractured in two places and become dislodged, causing one end of the lifting frame to drop.

Dave Rothery, Head of Operations (London, East and South East) at HSE’s Construction Division said: “The fundamental cause of the incident was the failure of the pin, which was defective. HSE’s enquiries revealed that the South African-based manufacturer/supplier company was no longer trading and, therefore, that legal proceedings would not be possible.

“However, the investigation findings raise a wider issue for consideration by those undertaking routine examination of lifting tackle and HSE is publishing this report with a view to raising awareness of the circumstances leading to Sam Ball’s death and, in particular, the implications.

“We advise that where lifting tackle components are not visible, the competent person undertaking the examination should give careful consideration to the circumstances in which such components should be removed for examination or routinely replaced. Lifting equipment manufacturers and suppliers should provide information on this subject to their customers.”

The use of lifting equipment is governed by the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER). Generally, the Regulations require that lifting equipment provided for use at work is: strong and stable enough for the intended use and marked to indicate safe working loads; positioned and installed to minimise any risks; used safely, i.e. work is planned, organised and performed by competent people; and subject to ongoing thorough examination and, where, appropriate, inspection by competent people.

Lifting equipment includes any equipment used for at work for lifting or lowering loads, including attachments used for anchoring, fixing or supporting them. LOLER covers a wide range of equipment including cranes; lift trucks, hoists, and mobile elevating work platforms, plus accessories such as chains, slings, eyebolts etc.

September

A company has been fined over £105,000 after it was prosecuted twice for separate health and safety offences that led to three employees being seriously injured. In the first case, Viridor Waste Management pleaded guilty to two charges under Scotland's health and safety regulations at Airdrie Sheriff's Court.

One of the charges related to an "inappropriate" traffic management system at the site, for which Viridor was fined £66,700. The fine relates to an incident where an employee had his foot crushed by the rear moving parts of a machine. A further fine of £33,300 came because the company had failed to comply with an improvement notice that had been issued in May 2004.

In the second case the firm was fined £2,500 and ordered to pay £2,914 in court costs after pleading guilty to two counts of health and safety related charges. The Central London Magistrates Court heard that Viridor had conducted an internal audit some weeks before the accident, which should have alerted them to weaknesses in the health and safety management system. Following an investigation by the HSE it was found that sufficient risk assessment and effective training had not been carried out.

Andrew Withers, HSE inspector, said: "I hope this case serves as a warning to all employers and higher management that failing to pay attention to, or spend money on health and safety can be very costly. In this case there was evidence that the company had spent a significant amount of resources on health and safety and that they appeared to be keen to have high standards. However, it was shown that the actual standards fell below what was adequate."

VWM managing director Mike Hellings said: “After 50 years in business, Viridor is disappointed to be in this position, given the efforts, measures and procedures in place at this and all its sites to ensure a safe working environment. Nevertheless the company recognises its duty under the relevant legislation and as a responsible employer, and of course regret the injuries suffered on this occasion.

“Its directors and managers work closely with employees, customers, contractors and site visitors to prevent accidents and maintain health and safety procedures. The company will learn key lessons from this serious incident and following prosecution will continue to strive to raise health and safety awareness and further improve its performance.”

A company has been fined £60,000 fined after failing to carry out proper risk assessments led to an employee having part of his leg amputated. Maintenance fitter George Reeves had his leg sliced off above the knee in May 2005 as he cleaned a large shot-blasting machine.

The HSE’s investigating office, Paul Billinger, told the court that the unsafe cleaning practices had been in place for two years. He added that if proper risk assessments had been carried out the accident could have been prevented. The company, Benford Ltd, admitted charges of failing to ensure the health and safety of its employees and failing to perform a suitable risk assessment.

Billinger welcomed the size of the fine as it helped emphasise the need for proper attention to health and safety issues at work. He said: "It is vitally important that all risk assessments include not only normal production work but also cover maintenance and cleaning operations. In this case, had the risk assessment covered maintenance, then the need for a safe system of work would have been apparent and this tragic incident could have been prevented."

August

Employers are being warned that they could be breaking the law if they fail to protect employees from the effects of this summer’s heatwave. The TUC claims that employers could be held liable if an employee becomes ill as a result of the heat, or has an accident if they faint or become tired.

While there is no maximum workplace temperature, under Regulation 7 of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 employers have a legal responsibility to ensure that the temperature inside the workplace is “reasonable” during working hours.

The HSE guidance on thermal comfort in the workplace attempts to define what an acceptable temperature is: “An acceptable zone of thermal comfort for most people in the UK lies roughly between 13°C and 30°C, with acceptable temperatures for more strenuous work activities concentrated towards the bottom end of the range, and more sedentary activities towards the higher end.”

If the temperature becomes too hot, the Regulations require action to be taken to reduce the heat.

The TUC has called again for the Government to enforce a maximum workplace temperature. The union proposes that the maximum working temperature should be 30°C or 27°C for those doing strenuous work. As Workplace Law previously reported, the TUC has been campaigning for a maximum workplace temperature since 2002.

In October 2004, following campaigns by the TUC and the shop worker's union Usdaw, the Government rejected calls to set a maximum temperature after the Health and Safety Commission deemed it impractical.

The HSE has reiterated this point, saying that it would be “inappropriate” to enforce a maximum working temperature.

An HSE spokesperson, said: "There are almost four million workplaces and one solution will not fit all. Employers are required to undertake a risk assessment in their workplace to include thermal comfort."

The HSE is warning companies to ensure that adequate precautions are being taken to prevent injuries from workplace transport accidents following a prosecution involving a skip delivery vehicle. Sandmaster Ltd has been fined £20,000 and costs of £4,500 at Stafford Magistrates' Court, after pleading guilty to a breach of health and safety legislation. The case follows an investigation into the death of employee Ivor William Babb, who was fatally struck by a skip delivery vehicle.

The incident occurred when Babb, a cleaner - at the company, was struck by a skip delivery vehicle when he was taking rubbish into the yard on 15 October 2004. Part of his job was to empty bins into large compressor skips. As he did so that day, it is thought he became entangled in the wheels of a lorry which was taking away a skip which was full.

Speaking after the case the HSE’s investigating inspector Andrew Bowker said: "This was a tragic accident which could have been avoided. Companies have a duty to ensure that appropriate safety measures are implemented to prevent injuries and pointless deaths such as this. It is vital that site and depot managers carry out a risk assessment to identify potential dangers to workers and put adequate solutions in place.

"The HSE is warning site and depot managers of the risks posed to workers from workplace transport - 10 people in the West Midlands region were killed last year. It doesn't take a lot of organisation or money to put measures in place which can make a difference to people's working environment and even save lives."

He criticised Sandmaster because, at the time of Babb's death, staff were not required to wear reflective jackets when going to the disposal area. This has since been changed. Sandmaster Ltd pleaded guilty to a breach of section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 at Stafford Magistrates' Court.

The Work at Height Regulations came into force on 6 April 2005.  However over a year on the wealth of case law involving accidents caused by working at height, and the many warnings issued by the HSE, suggests that the Regulations are still being ignored. This conclusion is supported by Norwich Union; the insurers claim that businesses are still flouting the law and causing accidents, even in trades not considered "high risk". It found that serious falls at work are not confined to trades such as roofing and scaffolding, as in the recent high profile scaffolding collapse at Milton Keynes, but frequently involve people working in decorating, building and farming.

The Work at Height Regulations require duty holders to ensure that all work at height is properly planned and organised and that those involved in work at height are competent. The risks must be assessed and appropriate work equipment selected and used. Also, the risks from fragile surfaces such as roofs must be properly controlled and all equipment used for working at height must be properly inspected and maintained.

The 2005 Regulations also removed the so-called '2-metre rule'. This rule meant that the use of work equipment to prevent falls would only be a requirement when working above 2m. Its removal redefined working at height to include any activity carried out above ground level.

Phil Grace, Norwich Union’s casualty risk manager, commented: "Painters and decorators fall from ladders more often than people would imagine, and the resulting broken ankles and wrists can put workers out of action permanently. We have also seen falls from simple equipment such as ladders result in brain damage.

"In the building trade falls from scaffold do happen, but also more unusual accidents, such as the builder – now paraplegic - who was working in windy conditions and was literally blown off the platform while handling plywood sheets.”

Since the Regulations came into force the HSE has issued a number warnings following work at height accidents. Examples are:

 According to the HSE falls from height are the most common cause of fatal injury and the second most common cause of major injury to employees, accounting for around 15% of injuries at work. Throughout Britain 53 people died and nearly 3800 suffered a serious injury in 2004/05 as a result of a fall from height in the workplace. Are businesses flouting the Work at Height Regulations? Given the number of cases highlighting injuries and deaths resulting from accidents caused by work at height, are businesses doing enough to protect their workers?

  Businesses have been warned that “sensible health and safety is not only fit for business, it helps to keep business fit” and that companies who fail in their health and safety duties will “will feel the heat”. Lord Hunt, the minister for health and safety, made the comments during a recent Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) Conference.

Lord Hunt said: “Britain has one of the best occupational health and safety records in the world. Since the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work Act in 1974, the rate of workplace fatalities has fallen by over two thirds. Safeguarding the welfare of workers is not just morally right. Many of our more progressive organisations have long recognised the wider benefits of good health and safety management. Managing health and safety risks looks after the bottom line.”

And Lord Hunt had a warning for organisations: “The HSE's strong messages about risks are backed up by equally robust enforcement when those risks are wilfully ignored – those who don’t see the light will feel the heat.”

Conservative shadow minister for health and safety, Tim Boswell MP, added: “I don’t know many companies who like it when a member of their workforce is killed, but there has to be a regulator who deals with those who don’t even try. If you go around killing your workforce and having a high level of accidents you are damaging your productivity and your reputation. It’s a very bad business for business, and not good for the people involved either.”

Health and safety failures lead to 35 million working days being lost each year, costing UK companies £9bn. On the issue of health and safety failures, Bill Callaghan, Chair of the HSC, has commented: “Poor health and safety performance is a competitiveness issue and employers who want business success cannot afford to ignore it. Not all of the costs are immediately apparent, which encourages ignorance and helps to create a culture of complacency. Also, many employers mistakenly believe that their insurance will cover the tab, but many policies will not cover losses such as reduced production, replacement labour and legal fees.”

Many employees who drive as part of their work say they have never received information or training about the risks they face while on the road.

A survey conducted for the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) found that over half the drivers (53%) who drive as part of their work say they have never received any information or training from their employers about road safety issues.

It is estimated that  1,000 people are killed while driving for work each year - nearly a third of all road deaths - and another 13,000 are seriously injured.

Seven out of ten employees say their employers neither offer nor require medical check-ups (70%), a driver risk assessment or training (75%), or training on basic vehicle safety checks (75%). And six out of ten (64%) say their employers have not offered or required even a basic eyesight test.

According to the survey, only one in four employers checks that a private car is insured for business use (24%) or, if it is over three years old, that it has a valid MOT (27%). Only just over half (54%) of employers periodically check the validity of their employees' driving licences.

Nearly half of employees admit that pressures from their employer or work lead them to break the speed limit (48%) or lose their temper with other motorists (46%). One in five (20%) admits to using a handheld mobile while driving because of work pressure.

Only one in eight (12%) employers is said to have a policy banning the use of mobiles except when stopped. And the survey found that one in four (24%) of employees said their firm had no policy at all on using mobile phones.

Overall, when employees were asked to what extent they thought their employers were concerned about their personal safety on the road whilst driving for work, three out of ten (31%) replied that their employers were "not very" or "not at all" concerned.

The IAM described employers' apparent lack of concern for employees who drive as part of their jobs as "frightening".

IAM Chief Executive, Christopher Bullock, said: "We are shocked by the scale of these findings. Too many employers think their responsibility for employees when they're at work ends at the front door or the factory gate. Employers who fail to look after staff who are out on the road risk accidents that can result in employees being killed. Quite apart from being irresponsible, it is bad for their business."

The survey polled 1000 drivers from across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Company car drivers are failing to carry out routine checks on their vehicles, while half haven't even bothered to read their vehicle manual, according to new research. A survey by Kwik-Fit Fleet found that only a third of company car drivers checked tyre pressure and tread no more than once every three months, while 21% never carried out checks at all. Less than half (45%) checked their tyres at least monthly, in accordance with industry advice.

Slightly more than one fifth of drivers (22%) admitted to never checking car fluid levels - oil and water - and 34% said they only undertook quarterly checks. A total of 44% of drivers said they carried out checks at least monthly. The survey also revealed that almost half of drivers (49%) admitted to never having read the driver's manual issued with their company car.

Nigel Davies, UK fleet sales director of Kwik-Fit Fleet, said: "Health and safety has consistently featured as the number one fleet industry issue in recent years, yet our survey shows that in terms of routine vehicle maintenance basic checks are being ignored by many drivers. This may be because of a laissez-faire attitude among company car drivers or the fact that they have not read the manual which tells them about basic maintenance and when to carry it out or have not been advised by fleet operators.

"Carrying out checks, at least monthly, on tyres and fluid levels as well as lights and windscreen wipers should be standard procedures for all drivers. As far as health and safety regulations are concerned the company car is defined as a place of work so following best practice advice is essential."

Mr Davies warned that poor vehicle maintenance and inspection procedures could be the focus of police and health and safety investigations following an accident. In addition, the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) could be called in to examine whether a vehicle defect may have contributed to an incident and, often in tandem with the police, carry out spot checks on vehicle roadworthiness. The survey showed that the majority (61%) of drivers were not given any reminder by their fleet manager, leasing company or fleet management provider when their car was due for a service.

More than half of drivers (53%) said their employer checked their driving licence annually, but 29% said they had never had their licence checked, while 17% said their licence was checked at least quarterly. Of the drivers surveyed 48% had received penalty points for motoring offences. Almost three-quarters of drivers questioned (73%) said they had not received any driver training since passing their driving test, while half claimed that their employer had not kept them informed of legislative changes impacting on them, such as benefit-in-kind tax alterations.

Nigel Davies said: "It is clear from our survey that while many fleets and their company car drivers have adopted best practice advice in respect of tightening health and safety regulations in respect of at-work driving, there are a significant number of companies and drivers that must tighten current practices."

It is an unfortunate fact that accidents at work are all too commonplace. The question is: are you prepared for them? The Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 require you to provide adequate and appropriate equipment, facilities and personnel to enable first aid to be given to your employees if they are injured or become ill at work.

The requirements

So what exactly, under the regulations, should an employer be providing?

“As an employer you have an obligation to ensure that there is adequate provision of first-aid facilities at all times. Unsurprisingly for UK health and safety law there is no definition of “adequate first aid” - it is up to each employer to assess what personnel and facilities will be appropriate and adequate. This will depend on a number of factors including the nature and business of the company, the number of employees and the results of the company’s risk assessment.” What is adequate and appropriate will depend on the circumstances in your workplace and you should assess what your first aid needs are.

The minimum first-aid provision on any work site or premises is:

It is also important to remember that accidents can happen at any time. First-aid provision needs to be available at all times people are at work.

The HSE offers a checklist of things that you should consider when assessing your company's first-aid needs. This list includes aspects such as:

How many first aiders?

There is no definitive number of how many first aiders or appointed persons that should be present, that will depend on what you have found out while assessing your company's first-aid needs. However the HSE have set out some guidelines. These are as follows for a low-risk (e.g. office-based) environment:

An 'appointed person' is someone you choose to:

Appointed persons should not attempt to give first aid for which they have not been trained, though short emergency first-aid training courses are available.

A 'first aider' is someone who has undergone a training course in administering first aid at work and holds a current first aid at work certificate. The training has to have been approved by the HSE. Lists of first-aid training organisations in your area are available from the HSE. You may decide, following your first-aid assessment, that you need one or more first aiders. A first aider can undertake the duties of an appointed person.

First aid box

There is no standard list of items to put in a first-aid box. It depends on what you assess the needs are. However, as a guide, and where there is no special risk in the workplace, a minimum stock of first-aid items would be:

Remember you should not keep tablets or medicines in the first-aid box.

The location of the first aid box is also important:

A company has agreed to pay an employee and undisclosed sum, after the company failed to provide a safety aid or required safety training, which led to the employee being injured. An electrician, cracked several ribs in a 2003 fall from his company vehicle while trying to secure a ladder to its roof. The pain from the rib injury – particularly when removing and securing the ladder - meant that Noble was unable to return to work for a period of time. During this time he was also anxious not to move awkwardly or place extra stress or strain on his ribs for fear of further pain.

The Company admitted liability for the accident because at the time of the accident the company van was fitted with a static ladder rack on the roof, which could not be reached from the ground. The electrician was never provided with training on how to access the roof, or any recommended way of removing or replacing the ladders, until after the accident.

This has led to a decision by the Company to fit a sliding rack, known as an easy load ladder, to every van. This will prevent further injuries of this type occurring. The device is fitted to the roof and is pulled off the roof using a handle. The rack then leans against the back of the van whilst the ladders are undone, which means the ladders can be untied or refastened on the ground.

July

Over three quarters (79%) of companies now report that health and safety is directed at board level, compared to just 58% four years ago. Research carried out between 2001 and 2005 on behalf of the HSE showed an increase in the number of boards with a named health and safety director.

A new report brings together the results of three surveys carried out in 2001, 2003 and 2005. The percentage of firms that said health and safety was directed at board level had risen from 58% in 2001 to 66% in 2003 and 79% in 2005. The main reasons given for board direction of health and safety were the need for "corporate direction" and a "visible commitment" from directors being shown. The HSE added that a general increase in the level of importance of health and safety among boards could be attributed to concern about corporate image. Recent HSE guidance concerning directors' responsibilities had also raised awareness among board members, with 82% being aware of the publication.

A "large majority" of health and safety directors reported carrying out the full range of tasks cited in HSE guidance "to some extent" - such as setting targets and allocating resources. Most of those questioned believed that further action was needed to encourage and assist board members to become further involved in health and safety matters. Some suggested further guidance and examples of health and safety leadership, while others called for a legal definition of directors' duties. The majority of directors and managers agreed that defining duties in law would be "useful" with a "significant minority" citing adverse impacts such as making health and safety a matter of liability management.

The study revealed an increase from 75% in 2001 to 85% in 2005 in boards with a named health and safety director, although the researchers said that follow-up interviews with trade union and employee representatives had led them to query 14% of these in 2005. All but one of the organisations that lacked board direction claimed they had a health and safety manager who reported to the board in 2005.

The research report concluded: "In 2005 the proportion of employers with directors, or equivalent, with health and safety responsibility has increased again to just under 80%, from just under 60% in 2001. This can be interpreted as a significant increase, namely a halving of the number of organisations that do not have board level health and safety direction. Clearly, continuation of this trend would lead to 100% uptake. However, there does appear to be a hardening of opinion - the proportion of respondents with plans to increase the health and safety role of the board or directors has decreased. This does cast doubt on whether the increase in board level health and safety direction reported over the past four years can be relied on to continue henceforth."

Vicarious liability - when are you "the employer"?

The Court of Appeal has handed down its judgment in the case of Hawley v Luminar Leisure Ltd.

Mr Hawley was visiting a nightclub when one of the doormen hit him so hard he fell to the floor and suffered serious and permanent brain injuries.

The doorman was not employed by the nightclub, but by another company (ASE Security Services Ltd) to whom the nightclub had subcontracted its security.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's finding that the nightclub exercised sufficient practical control over the doorman to make it the "temporary deemed employer" for the purpose of vicarious liability. Important factors taken into account were that the doormen were subject to the nightclub's code of conduct, and the nightclub's manager supervised the doormen both in terms of where they should be stationed, and also on detailed issues such as who should be admitted and what should be done about customers who were proving troublesome.

This case is a useful example of when an organisation to whom an employee is seconded might be regarded as having legal responsibility for that employee. It is part of the developing trend seen in employment agency cases, where implied contracts of employment can arise over a period of time between agency worker and end-user.

Small firms have been warned not to neglect their safety responsibilities after new research showed that health and safety was often last on their list of priorities.

Application of the Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 to self-employed workers

As a self-employed worker, you are required to ensure you have adequate facilities to provide first aid to yourself while at work. You must make an assessment of the hazards and risks in your workplace and establish an appropriate level of first aid provision. What this means in practice is that if you work in a low risk activity, eg clerical work at home, a normal domestic first aid box would be adequate. If your work involves driving long distances or you are continuously on the road, the assessment may identify the need to keep a personal first aid kit in your vehicle.

Many self-employed people work on mixed premises with other self-employed or with employed workers. Although you are legally responsible for your own first aid provision, it is sensible to make joint arrangements with the other occupiers and self-employed on the premises. This would generally mean that one employer would take responsibility for first aid cover for all workers on the premises. HSE recommends there is a written agreement for any such arrangement.

June

The HSE is warning site and warehouse managers to be more aware of the risks posed to workers from workplace transport as nationally 70 people are killed each year. In addition to the fatalities, incidents involving vehicles at workplaces also accounted for 205 serious injuries. The warning comes as HSE launches its Workplace Transport Campaign. This campaign focuses on how depot managers can take small practical steps to make delivery areas safer.

The HSE highlight that drivers visiting sites are particularly vulnerable because they spend much of their time on worksites that they are not familiar with. They suggest having designated ‘safe areas’ so that visiting drivers are encouraged to stay out of the way of danger. It doesn't take much organisation or even money to put in place measures which can make a huge difference to people's working environment and even save lives.

The most common vehicle accidents at work are caused by:

Nick Ratty, HSE, Head of Operations for the West Midlands said: "We really want to get across to drivers and site managers that it does not take a lot of effort to make drivers' jobs easier and help cut accidents. Just £100 could save a life. That's how much it costs to buy a couple of tins of fluorescent paint to yellow-line your parking area, put up an outside light or buy hi-viz jackets to help your staff be seen by drivers. It is vital that site and depot managers carry out a risk assessment to identify potential dangers to workers”

Although every site is different there are a number of things that can be done to make any site safer. These include:

Following the extension of the provisions of the DDA in December this year, December 2006 will see further important changes to the duties of employers, particularly those in the public authority and transport sectors. New changes will also impact those who let or manage rented premises. Debenhams is set to become the first major retailer to be prosecuted under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) for failing to improve physical access to goods and services.

There are likely to be an increasing number of disability discrimination cases taken to court or tribunal in 2006, many of which will be supported by the DRC as a way of developing case law. Last year saw the first recruitment case about disability discrimination to be heard, and several cases and appeals focussed on the exact definition of ‘disability’.

The draft Corporate Manslaughter Bill for England and Wales is still under discussion. A recent House of Commons committee report has warned that the Bill, as currently drafted, may let some big firms off the hook and create "perverse" incentives to treat health and safety less seriously. Many lobby groups have expressed the view that weaknesses in existing legislation led to charges being dropped against directors over the Hatfield and Paddington rail disasters. In Scotland an expert group reporting to the Scottish Executive has made controversial recommendations which are radically different and significantly more onerous than those proposed in England and Wales. The coming year is likely to see important changes in legislation in this area.

Developments are also likely in the case of Gillian Beckingham, a Council-employed architect, who still faces trial in 2006 on manslaughter charges following the death of seven people in an outbreak of Legionnaires' Disease in Barrow-in-Furness in 2002. The original trial collapsed last year after the jury were unable to reach a verdict. Barrow Borough Council were originally also charged with seven counts of corporate manslaughter, the first public body to be charged with the offence in Britain, but the judge directed the jury to find the authority not guilty.

Ms Beckingham has been granted leave to appeal the health and safety charges that she has already been convicted of; a directions hearing is expected to take place in January to decide on the details of the appeal. The outcome will be of acute interest to anyone in a managerial role who has actual - or potential - responsibility for operational health and safety. Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 Beckingham faces up to two years in prison if her appeal is unsuccessful, regardless of the outcome of the manslaughter prosecution. Workplace Law will be following the story closely.

From Spring 2007 working drivers will lose the flexibility they currently have over when they take their rest periods, following changes to the European Union Directive on drivers’ working hours.

At present, drivers are required to take 45 hours rest each week, but are allowed to reduce this amount if they want to work an extra day, provided they make their rest time up at a later date.

Under the new regulations drivers will only be able to reduce their rest break every second week. So on alternate weeks drivers will be required to take a full 45 hours rest and work a five-day week.

The Freight Transport Association’s (FTA) head of road freight policy, Joan Williams said: “There is no justification for putting an end to reducing rest on consecutive weeks. It will result in the loss of productivity and much-needed flexibility to spread the already restricted driving and work time over six days. This will have a serious impact on many freight transport sectors and ironically comes at a time when Government is actively urging the industry to improve productivity.”

Under the present Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations, drivers are restricted to work a maximum average of 48 hours per week and no more than 60 hours of work in any single week.

Further amendments to the drivers’ hours rules will require new vehicles to be fitted with digital tachographs from Spring next year.

Despite believing that the regulations will harm productivity the FTA have pointed out that the results could have been worse, as the original proposal would have completely put an end to reducing weekly rest at base. The FTA also highlighted some other successful outcomes of the proposals. These include:

Small and medium-sized businesses are woefully ill-prepared for the expected passing of the Government’s Corporate Manslaughter Act.A new survey reveals half of SMEs have no travel policy and more than half rely on employees having their own vehicles. Some 32% of firms offer a cash-for-car scheme, but 62% of these do not perform regular maintenance checks on employees’ vehicles. A third do not check insurance and 21% do not even check driving licences.

The survey of 400 SMEs was carried out by National Car Rental. With more businesses expected to introduce cash-for-car schemes in the next three years, National fears they could be leaving themselves open to prosecution under the new laws.

National’s vice-president of commercial development, Neil McCrossan, said: ‘It is estimated that a third of all road accidents involve someone driving for work and small businesses are perhaps the most vulnerable to the consequences of an accident involving a member of staff.

In March 2005, after a delay of several years, the Government published a draft Bill for a new offence of Corporate Manslaughter, which it is currently consulting on. A recent Government report stated that the number of road related deaths involving workers has also increased.

Company fined £24,000 after lack of reflective jackets led to transport accident.

The HSE is warning companies to ensure that adequate precautions are being taken to prevent injuries from workplace transport accidents following a prosecution involving a skip delivery vehicle.

Sandmaster Ltd has been fined £20,000 and costs of £4,500 at Stafford Magistrates' Court, after pleading guilty to a breach of health and safety legislation. The case follows an investigation into the death of employee Ivor William Babb, who was fatally struck by a skip delivery vehicle.

The incident occurred when Babb, a cleaner - at the company, was struck by a skip delivery vehicle when he was taking rubbish into the yard on 15 October 2004. Part of his job was to empty bins into large compressor skips. As he did so that day, it is thought he became entangled in the wheels of a lorry which was taking away a skip which was full.

Speaking after the case the HSE’s investigating inspector Andrew Bowker said: "This was a tragic accident which could have been avoided. Companies have a duty to ensure that appropriate safety measures are implemented to prevent injuries and pointless deaths such as this. It is vital that site and depot managers carry out a risk assessment to identify potential dangers to workers and put adequate solutions in place. The HSE is warning site and depot managers of the risks posed to workers from workplace transport - 10 people in the West Midlands region were killed last year. It doesn't take a lot of organisation or money to put measures in place which can make a difference to people's working environment and even save lives."

He criticised Sandmaster because, at the time of Babb's death, staff were not required to wear reflective jackets when going to the disposal area. This has since been changed. Sandmaster Ltd pleaded guilty to a breach of section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 at Stafford Magistrates' Court.

May

Work at height accidents still climbing

The Work at Height Regulations came into force on 6 April 2005.  However over a year on the wealth of case law involving accidents caused by working at height, and the many warnings issued by the HSE, suggests that the Regulations are still being ignored. This conclusion is supported by Norwich Union; the insurers claim that businesses are still flouting the law and causing accidents, even in trades not considered "high risk". It found that serious falls at work are not confined to trades such as roofing and scaffolding, as in the recent high profile scaffolding collapse at Milton Keynes, but frequently involve people working in decorating, building and farming.

The Work at Height Regulations require duty holders to ensure that all work at height is properly planned and organised and that those involved in work at height are competent. The risks must be assessed and appropriate work equipment selected and used. Also, the risks from fragile surfaces such as roofs must be properly controlled and all equipment used for working at height must be properly inspected and maintained.

The 2005 Regulations also removed the so-called '2-metre rule'. This rule meant that the use of work equipment to prevent falls would only be a requirement when working above 2m. Its removal redefined working at height to include any activity carried out above ground level.

Phil Grace, Norwich Union’s casualty risk manager, commented: "Painters and decorators fall from ladders more often than people would imagine, and the resulting broken ankles and wrists can put workers out of action permanently. We have also seen falls from simple equipment such as ladders result in brain damage.

"In the building trade falls from scaffold do happen, but also more unusual accidents, such as the builder – now paraplegic - who was working in windy conditions and was literally blown off the platform while handling plywood sheets.”

Since the Regulations came into force the HSE has issued a number warnings following work at height accidents. Just a few that we have noted are:

According to the HSE falls from height are the most common cause of fatal injury and the second most common cause of major injury to employees, accounting for around 15% of injuries at work. Throughout Britain 53 people died and nearly 3800 suffered a serious injury in 2004/05 as a result of a fall from height in the workplace.

Are businesses flouting the Work at Height Regulations? Given the number of cases highlighting injuries and deaths resulting from accidents caused by work at height, are businesses doing enough to protect their workers?  

Unsafe firms will “feel the heat”

Businesses have been warned that “sensible health and safety is not only fit for business, it helps to keep business fit” and that companies who fail in their health and safety duties will “will feel the heat”. Lord Hunt, the minister for health and safety, made the comments during a recent Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) Conference.

Lord Hunt said: “Britain has one of the best occupational health and safety records in the world. Since the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work Act in 1974, the rate of workplace fatalities has fallen by over two thirds. Safeguarding the welfare of workers is not just morally right. Many of our more progressive organisations have long recognised the wider benefits of good health and safety management. Managing health and safety risks looks after the bottom line.”

And Lord Hunt had a warning for organisations: “The HSE's strong messages about risks are backed up by equally robust enforcement when those risks are wilfully ignored – those who don’t see the light will feel the heat.”

Conservative shadow minister for health and safety, Tim Boswell MP, added: “I don’t know many companies who like it when a member of their workforce is killed, but there has to be a regulator who deals with those who don’t even try. If you go around killing your workforce and having a high level of accidents you are damaging your productivity and your reputation. It’s a very bad business for business, and not good for the people involved either.”

Health and safety failures lead to 35 million working days being lost each year, costing UK companies £9bn. On the issue of health and safety failures, Bill Callaghan, Chair of the HSC, has commented: “Poor health and safety performance is a competitiveness issue and employers who want business success cannot afford to ignore it. Not all of the costs are immediately apparent, which encourages ignorance and helps to create a culture of complacency. Also, many employers mistakenly believe that their insurance will cover the tab, but many policies will not cover losses such as reduced production, replacement labour and legal fees.”

April 

Employers’ lack of concern for untrained work drivers is ‘frightening’

Many employees who drive as part of their work say they have never received information or training about the risks they face while on the road. A survey conducted for the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM) found that over half the drivers (53%) who drive as part of their work say they have never received any information or training from their employers about road safety issues.

It is estimated that  1,000 people are killed while driving for work each year - nearly a third of all road deaths - and another 13,000 are seriously injured. Seven out of ten employees say their employers neither offer nor require medical check-ups (70%), a driver risk assessment or training (75%), or training on basic vehicle safety checks (75%). And six out of ten (64%) say their employers have not offered or required even a basic eyesight test.

According to the survey, only one in four employers checks that a private car is insured for business use (24%) or, if it is over three years old, that it has a valid MOT (27%). Only just over half (54%) of employers periodically check the validity of their employees' driving licences.

Nearly half of employees admit that pressures from their employer or work lead them to break the speed limit (48%) or lose their temper with other motorists (46%). One in five (20%) admits to using a handheld mobile while driving because of work pressure.

Only one in eight (12%) employers is said to have a policy banning the use of mobiles except when stopped. And the survey found that one in four (24%) of employees said their firm had no policy at all on using mobile phones.

Overall, when employees were asked to what extent they thought their employers were concerned about their personal safety on the road whilst driving for work, three out of ten (31%) replied that their employers were "not very" or "not at all" concerned.

The IAM described employers' apparent lack of concern for employees who drive as part of their jobs as "frightening".

IAM Chief Executive, Christopher Bullock, said: "We are shocked by the scale of these findings. Too many employers think their responsibility for employees when they're at work ends at the front door or the factory gate. Employers who fail to look after staff who are out on the road risk accidents that can result in employees being killed. Quite apart from being irresponsible, it is bad for their business."

The survey polled 1000 drivers from across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Company car drivers ignoring routine checks

Company car drivers are failing to carry out routine checks on their vehicles, while half haven't even bothered to read their vehicle manual, according to new research. A survey by Kwik-Fit Fleet found that only a third of company car drivers checked tyre pressure and tread no more than once every three months, while 21% never carried out checks at all. Less than half (45%) checked their tyres at least monthly, in accordance with industry advice.

Slightly more than one fifth of drivers (22%) admitted to never checking car fluid levels - oil and water - and 34% said they only undertook quarterly checks. A total of 44% of drivers said they carried out checks at least monthly. The survey also revealed that almost half of drivers (49%) admitted to never having read the driver's manual issued with their company car.

Nigel Davies, UK fleet sales director of Kwik-Fit Fleet, said: "Health and safety has consistently featured as the number one fleet industry issue in recent years, yet our survey shows that in terms of routine vehicle maintenance basic checks are being ignored by many drivers. This may be because of a laissez-faire attitude among company car drivers or the fact that they have not read the manual which tells them about basic maintenance and when to carry it out or have not been advised by fleet operators. Carrying out checks, at least monthly, on tyres and fluid levels as well as lights and windscreen wipers should be standard procedures for all drivers. As far as health and safety regulations are concerned the company car is defined as a place of work so following best practice advice is essential."

Mr Davies warned that poor vehicle maintenance and inspection procedures could be the focus of police and health and safety investigations following an accident. In addition, the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) could be called in to examine whether a vehicle defect may have contributed to an incident and, often in tandem with the police, carry out spot checks on vehicle roadworthiness. The survey showed that the majority (61%) of drivers were not given any reminder by their fleet manager, leasing company or fleet management provider when their car was due for a service.

More than half of drivers (53%) said their employer checked their driving licence annually, but 29% said they had never had their licence checked, while 17% said their licence was checked at least quarterly. Of the drivers surveyed 48% had received penalty points for motoring offences. Almost three-quarters of drivers questioned (73%) said they had not received any driver training since passing their driving test, while half claimed that their employer had not kept them informed of legislative changes impacting on them, such as benefit-in-kind tax alterations.

Nigel Davies said: "It is clear from our survey that while many fleets and their company car drivers have adopted best practice advice in respect of tightening health and safety regulations in respect of at-work driving, there are a significant number of companies and drivers that must tighten current practices."

First aid at work – do you comply with the law?

It is an unfortunate fact that accidents at work are all too commonplace. The question is: are you prepared for them? The Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 require you to provide adequate and appropriate equipment, facilities and personnel to enable first aid to be given to your employees if they are injured or become ill at work.

The requirements

So what exactly, under the regulations, should an employer be providing?

“As an employer you have an obligation to ensure that there is adequate provision of first-aid facilities at all times. Unsurprisingly for UK health and safety law there is no definition of “adequate first aid” - it is up to each employer to assess what personnel and facilities will be appropriate and adequate. This will depend on a number of factors including the nature and business of the company, the number of employees and the results of the company’s risk assessment.” What is adequate and appropriate will depend on the circumstances in your workplace and you should assess what your first aid needs are.

The minimum first-aid provision on any work site or premises is:

It is also important to remember that accidents can happen at any time. First-aid provision needs to be available at all times people are at work.

The HSE offers a checklist of things that you should consider when assessing your company's first-aid needs. This list includes aspects such as:

How many first aiders?

There is no definitive number of how many first aiders or appointed persons that should be present, that will depend on what you have found out while assessing your company's first-aid needs. However the HSE have set out some guidelines. These are as follows for a low-risk (e.g. office-based) environment:

An 'appointed person' is someone you choose to:

Appointed persons should not attempt to give first aid for which they have not been trained, though short emergency first-aid training courses are available.

A 'first aider' is someone who has undergone a training course in administering first aid at work and holds a current first aid at work certificate. The training has to have been approved by the HSE. Lists of first-aid training organisations in your area are available from the HSE. You may decide, following your first-aid assessment, that you need one or more first aiders. A first aider can undertake the duties of an appointed person.

First aid box

There is no standard list of items to put in a first-aid box. It depends on what you assess the needs are. However, as a guide, and where there is no special risk in the workplace, a minimum stock of first-aid items would be:

Remember you should not keep tablets or medicines in the first-aid box.

The location of the first aid box is also important:

March

Lack of safety aid and training lead to ladder fall

A company has agreed to pay an employee and undisclosed sum, after the company failed to provide a safety aid or required safety training, which led to the employee being injured.

An electrician, cracked several ribs in a 2003 fall from his company vehicle while trying to secure a ladder to its roof.

The pain from the rib injury – particularly when removing and securing the ladder - meant that Noble was unable to return to work for a period of time. During this time he was also anxious not to move awkwardly or place extra stress or strain on his ribs for fear of further pain.

The Company admitted liability for the accident because at the time of the accident the company van was fitted with a static ladder rack on the roof, which could not be reached from the ground. The electrician was never provided with training on how to access the roof, or any recommended way of removing or replacing the ladders, until after the accident.

This has led to a decision by the Company to fit a sliding rack, known as an easy load ladder, to every van. This will prevent further injuries of this type occurring. The device is fitted to the roof and is pulled off the roof using a handle. The rack then leans against the back of the van whilst the ladders are undone, which means the ladders can be untied or refastened on the ground.

Health and safety being tackled at boardroom level

Over three quarters (79%) of companies now report that health and safety is directed at board level, compared to just 58% four years ago. Research carried out between 2001 and 2005 on behalf of the HSE showed an increase in the number of boards with a named health and safety director. A new report brings together the results of three surveys carried out in 2001, 2003 and 2005. The percentage of firms that said health and safety was directed at board level had risen from 58% in 2001 to 66% in 2003 and 79% in 2005. The main reasons given for board direction of health and safety were the need for "corporate direction" and a "visible commitment" from directors being shown.

The HSE added that a general increase in the level of importance of health and safety among boards could be attributed to concern about corporate image. Recent HSE guidance concerning directors' responsibilities had also raised awareness among board members, with 82% being aware of the publication. A "large majority" of health and safety directors reported carrying out the full range of tasks cited in HSE guidance "to some extent" - such as setting targets and allocating resources.

Most of those questioned believed that further action was needed to encourage and assist board members to become further involved in health and safety matters. Some suggested further guidance and examples of health and safety leadership, while others called for a legal definition of directors' duties. The majority of directors and managers agreed that defining duties in law would be "useful" with a "significant minority" citing adverse impacts such as making health and safety a matter of liability management.

The study revealed an increase from 75% in 2001 to 85% in 2005 in boards with a named health and safety director, although the researchers said that follow-up interviews with trade union and employee representatives had led them to query 14% of these in 2005. All but one of the organisations that lacked board direction claimed they had a health and safety manager who reported to the board in 2005.

The research report concluded: "In 2005 the proportion of employers with directors, or equivalent, with health and safety responsibility has increased again to just under 80%, from just under 60% in 2001. This can be interpreted as a significant increase, namely a halving of the number of organisations that do not have board level health and safety direction. Clearly, continuation of this trend would lead to 100% uptake. However, there does appear to be a hardening of opinion - the proportion of respondents with plans to increase the health and safety role of the board or directors has decreased. This does cast doubt on whether the increase in board level health and safety direction reported over the past four years can be relied on to continue henceforth."

Vicarious liability - when are you "the employer"?

The Court of Appeal has, this morning, handed down its judgment in the case of Hawley v Luminar Leisure Ltd..

Mr Hawley was visiting a nightclub when one of the doormen hit him so hard he fell to the floor and suffered serious and permanent brain injuries.

The doorman was not employed by the nightclub, but by another company (ASE Security Services Ltd) to whom the nightclub had subcontracted its security.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's finding that the nightclub exercised sufficient practical control over the doorman to make it the "temporary deemed employer" for the purpose of vicarious liability. Important factors taken into account were that the doormen were subject to the nightclub's code of conduct, and the nightclub's manager supervised the doormen both in terms of where they should be stationed, and also on detailed issues such as who should be admitted and what should be done about customers who were proving troublesome.

This case is a useful example of when an organisation to whom an employee is seconded might be regarded as having legal responsibility for that employee. It is part of the developing trend seen in employment agency cases, where implied contracts of employment can arise over a period of time between agency worker and end-user.

Application of the Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981 to self-employed workers

As a self-employed worker, you are required to ensure you have adequate facilities to provide first aid to yourself while at work. You must make an assessment of the hazards and risks in your workplace and establish an appropriate level of first aid provision. What this means in practice is that if you work in a low risk activity, eg clerical work at home, a normal domestic first aid box would be adequate. If your work involves driving long distances or you are continuously on the road, the assessment may identify the need to keep a personal first aid kit in your vehicle.

Many self-employed people work on mixed premises with other self-employed or with employed workers. Although you are legally responsible for your own first aid provision, it is sensible to make joint arrangements with the other occupiers and self-employed on the premises. This would generally mean that one employer would take responsibility for first aid cover for all workers on the premises. HSE recommends there is a written agreement for any such arrangement.

February

The HSE is warning site and warehouse managers to be more aware of the risks posed to workers from workplace transport as nationally 70 people are killed each year. In addition to the fatalities, incidents involving vehicles at workplaces also accounted for 205 serious injuries. The warning comes as HSE launches its Workplace Transport Campaign. This campaign focuses on how depot managers can take small practical steps to make delivery areas safer.

The HSE highlight that drivers visiting sites are particularly vulnerable because they spend much of their time on worksites that they are not familiar with. They suggest having designated ‘safe areas’ so that visiting drivers are encouraged to stay out of the way of danger. It doesn't take much organisation or even money to put in place measures which can make a huge difference to people's working environment and even save lives.

The most common vehicle accidents at work are caused by:

Nick Ratty, HSE, Head of Operations for the West Midlands said: "We really want to get across to drivers and site managers that it does not take a lot of effort to make drivers' jobs easier and help cut accidents. Just £100 could save a life. That's how much it costs to buy a couple of tins of fluorescent paint to yellow-line your parking area, put up an outside light or buy hi-viz jackets to help your staff be seen by drivers."

"It is vital that site and depot managers carry out a risk assessment to identify potential dangers to workers” Although every site is different there are a number of things that can be done to make any site safer. These include:

Following the extension of the provisions of the DDA in December this year, December 2006 will see further important changes to the duties of employers, particularly those in the public authority and transport sectors. New changes will also impact those who let or manage rented premises. Debenhams is set to become the first major retailer to be prosecuted under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) for failing to improve physical access to goods and services.

There are likely to be an increasing number of disability discrimination cases taken to court or tribunal in 2006, many of which will be supported by the DRC as a way of developing case law. Last year saw the first recruitment case about disability discrimination to be heard, and several cases and appeals focussed on the exact definition of ‘disability’.

The draft Corporate Manslaughter Bill for England and Wales is still under discussion. A recent House of Commons committee report has warned that the Bill, as currently drafted, may let some big firms off the hook and create "perverse" incentives to treat health and safety less seriously. Many lobby groups have expressed the view that weaknesses in existing legislation led to charges being dropped against directors over the Hatfield and Paddington rail disasters. In Scotland an expert group reporting to the Scottish Executive has made controversial recommendations which are radically different and significantly more onerous than those proposed in England and Wales. The coming year is likely to see important changes in legislation in this area.

Developments are also likely in the case of Gillian Beckingham, a Council-employed architect, who still faces trial in 2006 on manslaughter charges following the death of seven people in an outbreak of Legionnaires' Disease in Barrow-in-Furness in 2002. The original trial collapsed last year after the jury were unable to reach a verdict. Barrow Borough Council were originally also charged with seven counts of corporate manslaughter, the first public body to be charged with the offence in Britain, but the judge directed the jury to find the authority not guilty.

Ms Beckingham has been granted leave to appeal the health and safety charges that she has already been convicted of; a directions hearing is expected to take place in January to decide on the details of the appeal. The outcome will be of acute interest to anyone in a managerial role who has actual - or potential - responsibility for operational health and safety. Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 Beckingham faces up to two years in prison if her appeal is unsuccessful, regardless of the outcome of the manslaughter prosecution.

January

From 20 March 2006, anyone working as a close protection operative in England or Wales will need an SIA licence. Full details are available from http://www.the-sia.org.uk

From Spring 2007 working drivers will lose the flexibility they currently have over when they take their rest periods, following changes to the European Union Directive on drivers’ working hours. At present, drivers are required to take 45 hours rest each week, but are allowed to reduce this amount if they want to work an extra day, provided they make their rest time up at a later date. Under the new regulations drivers will only be able to reduce their rest break every second week. So on alternate weeks drivers will be required to take a full 45 hours rest and work a five-day week.

The Freight Transport Association’s (FTA) head of road freight policy, Joan Williams said: “There is no justification for putting an end to reducing rest on consecutive weeks. It will result in the loss of productivity and much-needed flexibility to spread the already restricted driving and work time over six days. This will have a serious impact on many freight transport sectors and ironically comes at a time when Government is actively urging the industry to improve productivity.”

Under the present Road Transport (Working Time) Regulations, drivers are restricted to work a maximum average of 48 hours per week and no more than 60 hours of work in any single week. Further amendments to the drivers’ hours rules will require new vehicles to be fitted with digital tachographs from Spring next year.

Despite believing that the regulations will harm productivity the FTA have pointed out that the results could have been worse, as the original proposal would have completely put an end to reducing weekly rest at base. The FTA also highlighted some other successful outcomes of the proposals. These include:

Exemption for a number of unique operations, in particular the supply of gas, electricity and telecommunications, will now remain. However these exemptions will no longer be automatically provided by Europe and it will be for the Department for Transport to decide if these essential services should continue to be exempt in the UK.

Small and medium-sized businesses are woefully ill- prepared for the expected passing of the Government’s Corporate Manslaughter Act. A new survey reveals half of SMEs have no travel policy and more than half rely on employees having their own vehicles. Some 32% of firms offer a cash-for-car scheme, but 62% of these do not perform regular maintenance checks on employees’ vehicles. A third do not check insurance and 21% do not even check driving licences.

The survey of 400 SMEs was carried out by National Car Rental. With more businesses expected to introduce cash-for-car schemes in the next three years, National fears they could be leaving themselves open to prosecution under the new laws. National’s vice-president of commercial development, Neil McCrossan, said: ‘It is estimated that a third of all road accidents involve someone driving for work and small businesses are perhaps the most vulnerable to the consequences of an accident involving a member of staff.

In March 2005, after a delay of several years, the Government published a draft Bill for a new offence of Corporate Manslaughter, which it is currently consulting on.

A recent Government report stated that the number of road related deaths involving workers has also increased.

news and more

Training Courses

We are now running Fire Safety Awareness Training courses.

Now Available

"Health & Safety Management In The Live Music And Events Industry"

The Latest Book From Chris Hannam of STAGESAFE

For full details and to order your copy, click here now!

STAGESAFE is accredited by the

Production Services Association

Production Services Association