News for 2007
June
Lighting rig collapse injures child
A young boy and his baby sister had a narrow escape after lighting equipment fell more than 15ft from a balcony during a children's concert. Police, paramedics and firefighters were all called to Portobello Town Hall following the accident at around 3.40pm yesterday. The lighting rig landed on the four-month-old girl's buggy and she suffered a slight eye injury while her five-year-old brother escaped unharmed. Both were taken to the Sick Kids to be checked over before being released.
The Health and Safety Executive is investigating how the lighting rig, which was about 4ft long, came loose. Brian Cope, director of Portobello Music School, which opened in September, said: "It was after the show when people were starting to leave. I didn't see it happen, I was on the stage at the time talking to someone. I just heard the commotion and went over to see what was happening. My wife went to the hospital and stayed with the family until they knew the children were all right.
"The little girl has a cut to her right eye - her buggy broke the fall of the lighting rig. The little boy, who is a member of the music pre-school, was not touched but went to hospital because everyone was in shock." About 400 people, including a large number of children, turned up at the hall on the town's High Street yesterday afternoon, to watch The Blue Parrot, which featured performances from about 130 youngsters.
Mr Cope, who wrote the songs for the concert himself, said: "The children are fine, thankfully. It was just a horrible thing to happen after such a wonderful afternoon and it took us all a while to recover from it. We're just thankful no-one was hurt. The show was a great success, everyone loved it." One witness said: "I was just ushering my kids out of the town hall when all I heard was a scream - which must have been pretty loud given the number of people there - and a thud.
"The next thing I knew, there were people running back into the hall. I couldn't be sure what happened, but it looked like something had fallen from the balcony. There had been an audio- visual slide show accompanying the concert which was being run from the balcony, and from where all the commotion was, it appeared that a piece of that equipment might have fallen to the ground.
"I concentrated on getting my children outside because I didn't want them getting upset and when I got outside there was an ambulance pulling up. My wife heard outside that whatever fell had just missed a pram. I understand that there were no serious injuries but I dread to think what might have happened."
The town hall is city council premises so the local authority will not be investigating itself, but assisting the HSE. A city council spokeswoman said: "The council is working closely with the HSE and Lothian and Borders Police to support this investigation."
Dragster show accident kills six
From Harry Houdini to Evel Knievel, people love to see daredevils put on a show. The greater the danger to the performer, the bigger the thrill for the spectator. The crowd would not turn out and pay their money if there weren't some risk involved. The risk might be deadly, as when Blue Angels pilot Kevin J. Davis was killed in a crash during an air show April 21 in Beaufort, S.C.
But spectators seldom think that they might be the victims. By now, the terrible outcome of a car charity show June 16 in Selmer, Tenn., is well-known: During a "burnout" exhibition in which he spun his back tires until they smoked, a driver lost control of his dragster and plowed into spectators, killing six young people and injuring 23 others. In the aftermath, some are pointing fingers at the driver, Troy Warren Critchley. But alcohol and drug tests on the Australian-born pro racer were negative, and attention should more appropriately be focused on the way the car show, an annual fundraiser, was staged.
The dragster performed on an open city street, with no barriers between the street and hundreds of spectators. And a mere guardrail, as is found elsewhere along that Selmer street, would not have helped. Concrete barriers might have worked, but the only way to ensure safety would have been to move this event to a racetrack, designed for racecars, with protected stadium seating.
In the case of air shows, even stadium seats would not guarantee safety in the event of a crash. Incidents such as the Blue Angels crash in April invariably spark calls for a ban on air shows. Opponents point to the most extreme cases, a 1988 disaster at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, where 72 spectators were killed, and in Lviv, Ukraine, in 2002, where 78 people died.
Currently, there are activist groups petitioning to cancel a popular, annual Blue Angels show in San Francisco, in part because of the South Carolina crash. And Germany banned air shows for several years after the Ramstein tragedy. But regulations are already in place on American air shows that are intended to keep aircraft at a safe distance from the crowds. The nearest a slow-flying aircraft may get is 500 feet; high-speed aircraft, 1,000-1,500 feet. And no aircraft may fly over a crowd at less than 1,000 feet.
Those distances may not sound like much, but note that there has not been a spectator casualty at an American air show in more than 50 years (However, there are typically a handful of pilot and passenger fatalities in air shows nationwide each year). The fact is, car and air exhibitions are highly popular events, and many, such as the Selmer show, raise money for worthy causes. Before rushing to prohibit shows after a tragic incident, officials and event organizers should consult experts on how to stage them safely.
Clearly, this was not done for the annual event in Selmer. The "we've always done it this way" argument is not enough. After Selmer and surrounding towns have mourned their losses, and state officials have investigated the cause of the dragster crash, the safety of future spectator events should be made the priority.
Council fined for herbicide use
The day after Macclesfield Borough Council was fined a total of £6,000 ordered to pay £3,747 costs after pleading guilty to two HSE charges at Macclesfield Magistrates Court the HSE has issued a warning for employers to train their staff. HSE Inspector Catherine Catchpole says: "The charges were brought after council employee Andrew McKeith failed to return from work. He was reported missing by his wife after spending a day spraying the herbicide 'Enforcer' at recreation grounds throughout the borough.
"Mr McKeith had not been trained in proper use of the herbicide nor was he given the correct protective equipment and therefore suffered prolonged exposure to its effects. As a result, when he returned to his normal workplace he became disorientated and has no recollection of where he spent the night of 12 April 2006. He was not found until the following morning when a colleague found him wandering in Bollington Recreation Park.
"It is vital that businesses of all types and size realise that they must ensure their staff has been properly trained in using equipment and materials and are also given the correct protective equipment to reduce the risks from using it."
Macclesfield Borough Council was fined £3,000 after pleading guilty to a breach of Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 in that it failed to ensure the safety of all employees engaged in spraying herbicide and failed to provide them with adequate information, instruction and training. It was also fined £3,000 after pleading guilty to a breach of Section 3(1) of the same Act in that it failed to protect persons not in their employment from the work activity.
Section 2(1) of the HSWA states: "It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees."
Section 3 (1) of the HSW states, "It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety."
Employers' warning on speeding
Despite being potentially liable if their drivers are found speeding, businesses are failing to ensure that employees who drive as part of their work are not put under unreasonable time pressures, which lead them to drive faster.
The Fleet Safety Benchmarking project, run by the Fleet Safety Forum, has found that only 44% of companies are optimising work schedules and travel requirements to minimise road risks and encourage drivers to keep within the speed limit.
If a driver has been given a heavy workload and drivers are working/driving for excessive periods, the company could face legal action if an accident occurs. Schedules and incentive schemes that reward drivers for cramming in as many jobs as possible could also lead to legal action in the event of an accident. It is essential that companies do not put drivers in a position where they are forced to speed.
Managers are generally held responsible for their drivers’ actions. For instance, when a speeding ticket is issued, it goes to the registered keeper of the vehicle and requires them to give information on the identity of the driver at the time of the offence. If the company does not reply within 28 days, the manager faces prosecution for not naming the driver under the Road Traffic Act 1998.
Nicola Cardenas-Blanco, Solicitor at Martineau Johnson, says that “the courts will consider an employer’s liability for this issue on a case by case basis but usually companies are found liable if they find that a driver has been given a heavy workload and is under considerable pressure to get the work done within a short time frame. Breaking the speed limit or getting into an accident in these cases will be the company’s responsibility.”
Cardenas-Blanco advises employers to be practical and consult their workforce on what they consider to be reasonable. Employees should be allowed to tell their employers that the workload given is unreasonable.
She goes on to say that “monitoring procedures should be put in place by employers so that they can check how much work is given to different people. This could show them whether their drivers are managing their work effectively.”
Employers are also advised to encourage their drivers to slow down when they are driving. Employers should provide a driver’s handbook which can educate their employees on the different speed limits on roads.
CCA calls for amendments to Bill
The Centre for Corporate Accountability (CCA) is calling on the House of Lords to agree on the House of Commons’ amendments to the Corporate Manslaughter Bill.
In a letter addressed to the members of the House of Lords, the CCA argues: “We understand that you may feel that any failure in the Bill should be placed on the shoulders of the Government and their decision not to accept your amendments. However, that would be of no comfort to bereaved families if the Bill is lost.”
Today (25 June), the amendments made by the Commons, which proposed that deaths in custody would not be covered in the Bill, will be voted on in the House of Lords.
“If the Lords agree on these amendments today, we could see the Bill pulling through; however, further disagreements on the Bill’s amendments will lead to continued ping ponging and a risk of the Bill failing,” said a spokesperson for the CCA.
Study examines PCs' carbon footprint
PCs are said to be one of the biggest contributors to an organisation’s carbon footprint. According to research carried out by Gartner, the information technology research and advisory company, the average desktop PC wastes nearly half the power delivered to it. This wasted electricity increases the emission of greenhouse gases.
The Government has launched a ‘Green Shift’ Initiative to trial ways to reduce the vast carbon footprint left behind by office technology. It will search ways to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions from the production, operation and disposal of computers. It will also oversee the introduction of 'green PCs' that use 98% less energy than standard computers.
To achieve this, applications will be shifted from the desktop PC, to more energy efficient data centres. To reduce carbon emissions from computers, Gartner recommends that businesses should:
- measure the power consumption of computers;
- use fewer servers and printers;
- not over-provision on office technology;
- improve computer cooling;
- turn power management on or use a low power state or turn equipment off after hours; and
- analyse all waste.
An online carbon calculator that enables businesses to work out their carbon footprint using government-recognised data was launched by Environment Secretary David Miliband yesterday.
The calculator enables a business to calculate its carbon footprint and develops a personalised action plan for users, with steps they can take to cut their emissions.
David Miliband says that the carbon calculator “will help people decide what they can do – and be sure it will make a difference. Using it, people can work out the impact of their actions and, with the tailored recommendations provided by the calculator, identify the best way to reduce their footprint.”
Company fined for forklift accident
Kudos Shower Products Ltd has been prosecuted and fined £10,000 after a crate fell off a forklift truck breaking an employee's foot, highlighting the need to have safe working practices when handling heavy materials.
The incident occurred when two employees, including Daniel Phelan, were helping move large 700kg crates in the warehouse, when one of the crates fell off a fork lift truck, crushing Phelan's steel toe capped safety boots and breaking his foot.
Kudos Shower Products pleaded guilty to a charge under section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 for failing to ensure the health and safety of its employees.
HSE Inspector Anthony Polec said: “The large heavy crates were being moved upright on the fork lift truck with the two employees walking alongside to stabilise them… This was an unsafe way of moving these crates. Employers have a duty to ensure that safe working practices are in place.
“Manual handling injuries are the most common type of occupation ill-health and their prevention has been identified as a priority by the HSE.”
New waste regulation come into effect
On 1 July 2007 (Sunday), the deadline for implementation of the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Regulations 2006 will be up, affecting everybody in the WEEE chain.
Businesses have had six months to prepare for the Regulations, which came into force on 2 January 2007. They place new duties on Producers, distributors and end-users to ensure waste electrical and electronic equipment is disposed of correctly. The WEEE Regulations aim to minimise the amount of WEEE that goes in landfill.
Research has shown that many businesses are unaware of their duties under the Regulations.
Risk assessment failures in Hammond crash
A investigation into a high-speed crash which nearly claimed the life of Top Gear's Richard Hammond said on Friday the BBC had failed to allow enough time for planning the filmed event.
The 37-year-old TV presenter suffered serious brain injuries and was in hospital for five weeks after a Vampire drag racer he was driving burst a tyre and span off the course at 288 mph at Elvington airfield near York in September 2006. He has since recovered and returned to work.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) also criticised the company that provided the jet powered modified drag racer, Primetime Landspeed Engineering (PTLE). It said a risk assessment PTLE provided to the BBC made no allowance for training a driver such as Hammond who was unfamiliar with the superpowered vehicle.
In a report the HSE said: "The training available to Richard Hammond would have familiarised him with the working of the car but would not have allowed him to build up the skills which he could readily employ in the event of an emergency." It said the BBC had failed to challenge the adequacy of PTLE's risk assessment.
Principal HSE Inspector Keith King said: "The investigation identified failings in the BBC's safety management systems relating to risk assessment and the procurement of services from others, and by PTLE in their risk assessment for the services provided to the BBC."
But he concluded that the failings viewed against the HSE's enforcement criteria did not merit prosecution. The report said several safety features almost certainly saved Hammond's life, including the strong build of the Vampire racer, the design of the driver restraints, the crash helmet and rescue services on site at the airfield.
Companies fined for power line incident
Two construction companies have been fined for failing to ensure the safety of one of their workers, Miall Roberts who died after coming into contact with an 11kV overhead power line. Miall Roberts died after being electrocuted when the concrete pump he was working on came into contact with the overhead power line at a site in Bala.
Permanent Flooring Ltd of Bagillt, Flintshire, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work (HSW) Act in relation to the death of Mr Roberts and R.L. Davies and Son Ltd of Llysfaen pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3 (1) of the HSW Act. Both companies were fined up to £31k.
This case highlights the importance of carrying out proper risk assessments especially where there are overhead power lines close to work activities. HSE Inspector Chris Wilcox said: “Overhead power lines can be switched off if the operators are given sufficient notice, but if this is not possible, they should be consulted on safe systems of work.”
He goes on to say that electric shock incidents are particularly common among construction workers who come into contact with high voltage electricity. Therefore, “it is imperative that employers ensure their staff and contractors are protected by carrying out a full risk assessment of the site.”
The HSE has recorded around 1000 incidents involving electric shock at work, and about 30 of these have resulted in fatalities.
Vehicle sharing comes under scrutiny
National Liftshare Day (14 June) promotes the car-sharing scheme as an effective, cost-saving, environmentally-friendly travel plan. The Liftshare Organisation is urging employers to promote the car-share in the workplace.
Yesterday, Workplace Law reported on the practical implications involved with the car-sharing scheme. However there are also some legal implications for employers to consider before implementing this scheme.
Is the employer liable for car accident injuries or fatalities to and from work? Does the employer have a legal duty to ensure that the car is well maintained, i.e. carry out a risk assessment for the vehicles involved?
Nicola Cardenas-Blanco from law firm Martineau Johnson says: “Employers' liability towards the car-sharing scheme will depend on the extent of endorsement of the scheme. If employers are purely suggesting or encouraging their employees to share a vehicle to travel to work for environmental reasons, then they will not be open to liability. But if they are encouraging this scheme and it is a company requirement almost, then they hold a greater element of responsibility and could possibly open themselves up to legal liability.”
In terms of vehicle maintenance and risk assessments, if the personal vehicle is used for business use, then the employer should put in place a clear driving at work policy stating that the owner of the vehicle should ensure the safety of its passengers, making sure that it is properly taxed, insured and regularly maintained. The employee concerned would be responsible for this.
The situation would change if the car was a company car. The employer has an element of control over this vehicle and is responsible for all maintenance, health and safety issues, insurance and tax.
John Turnbull from BPE solicitors says that if the car-sharing arrangement is to work, employers should put in place a clear policy to address both legal and practical issues that may arise with the travel plan.
ECJ judgement on “so far as is reasonably practicable”
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has given its long-awaited judgement on the legality of the phrase “so far as is reasonably practicable” in UK health and safety law. The ECJ rejected the European Commissions (EC) claim that the use of “so far as is reasonably practicable” restricts an employers duty to ensure the health and safety of its workers and hence is incompatible with EC law.
The ECs argument was that the phrase in question represented a limited liability clause and can act as a defence for employers, restricting an employers duty to ensure safety. They claimed that this was contrary to Article 5 of the EC Framework Directive which states:
- The employer shall have a duty to ensure the health and safety of workers in every aspect related to work.
This ruling comes after a ten-year dispute between the EU Commission and the UK Government on the employers defence of reasonable practicability.
No change for British H & S laws
Last week's European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling on Britain's workplace health and safety laws has seen employers expressing relief that, in the short term at least, no changes will be made to existing health and safety practices. Lord McKenzie, Health and Safety minister hailed it as a "victory for common sense" and Bill Callaghan, Chairman of the HSC echoed his view, commenting, "We continue to believe that the right way forward is a proportionate and risk-based approach protecting employees and others effectively whilst allowing common sense to be applied when deciding on what protective measures to adopt".
David Wright, solicitor at Kennedy's spoke to Workplace Law, offering his view: "My suspicion is that as far as the short term is concerned, and by short term' I mean years rather than weeks (bear in mind the fact that the Commission's attack on reasonable practicability dates back ten years), no changes will be required or effected to the relevant provisions of UK health and safety legislation...
"In the longer term, the ECJ's judgment and its Advocate General's opinion before it, leaves the door open for further challenge by the Commission, should the Commission have the stomach for it. The ECJ has not in its judgment sanctioned the UK's allowance of employers to plead time, trouble and expense factors by way of a defence to liability. Hence that particular allowance remains vulnerable to attack."
What is certain is that employers cannot afford to relax their health and safety policies in light of this judgment. Accidents and illness at work continue to cost UK industry billions every year, and companies' health and safety records speak volumes about their work ethic and corporate responsibility. Employers can no longer afford a tick the box' approach to health and safety and must ensure their health and safety strategies are up to scratch.
Workplace Law reported earlier in the week that the Corporate Manslaughter Bill is still "ping-ponging" between the House of Lords and the House of Commons as the debate continues over whether the new offence will apply to deaths in state custody. The Bill will not be passed until both Houses agree on the amendment. If an agreement is not reached by 17 July, the end of Parliament, the Bill will have to be scrapped.
Meanwhile the Institute of Directors (IOD) has published draft guidance on directors' responsibilities on health and safety at work. The HSC issued official guidance on this topic in 2001. It is intended that the new guidance will replace the 2001 version. Workplace Law will present further information as it becomes available.
IOD publishes H & S guidelines for company directors
In addition to owing a number of fiduciary duties to the company to which they are appointed, personal responsibility for directors can arise in a number of areas and under a variety of statutes. One such area is health and safety. An individual director, company secretary or manager of a company can be held criminally responsible for health and safety offences where the company itself is found guilty of a health and safety offence and the offence is committed with the consent or connivance of or was attributable to any neglect on the part of that individual.
It is accordingly essential that directors ensure that they are kept informed of the company’s particular health and safety risks and performance and have in place suitable policies and procedures to manage any such risk.
The Institute of Directors (IOD) recently published draft guidance on directors’ responsibilities on health and safety at work. The HSC (which is responsible for health and safety regulation in Great Britain) issued official guidance on this topic in 2001. It is intended that the new guidance will replace the 2001 version.
The HSC determined last year that:
- more needed to be done to get the health and safety message across at board level (encompassing the public, private and third sectors, including the voluntary and charitable sectors); and
- that this was a key part of maintaining and improving health and safety performance.
The HSC asked the Health and Safety Executive to work with “key stakeholders to produce authoritative guidance” on directors’ responsibilities in this area which led to the IOD being asked to take the process forward. A steering group has been formed to oversee the production of the new guidance.
Company fined for breaching PUWER
The HSE is warning businesses to ensure that the use of potentially harmful machinery is properly guarded. The warning follows the case of an employee who suffered serious injuries after she became entangled in a carpet-beaming revolving machine.
The employee suffered a dislocated and broken shoulder, a gashed arm and multiple bruising because the machinery guarding was not fixed or interlocked and the trip wire was not in the correct position. HSE Inspector Richard Clarke said: “This case graphically illustrates that companies should ensure that all their machinery is adequately guarded for the safety of all employees.”
Newhey Carpets Ltd was fined £1,600 after pleading guilty for breaching the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) 1998. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 impose a duty to provide and maintain suitable work equipment, to provide adequate information, instructions and training, to protect against dangerous parts, and to protect against risks while maintaining it.
Ladder exchange scheme launched
The HSE has launched Ladder Exchange, a campaign that aims to remove 4000 damaged or broken ladders from workplaces in Britain. HSE and Local Authority inspectors will also be looking at safe ladder use in June and July 2007. They will be going round with a simple message to ladder users - if it is right to use a ladder, use the right ladder and use it safely. If it’s not the right ladder, exchange it.
Over the next 12 weeks, businesses have the chance to get their ladders checked and, where necessary, trade them in for new ones at a discounted price. The Work at Height Regulations 2005 apply to all work at height where there is a risk of a fall liable to cause personal injury. They place duties on employers, the self-employed, and any person who controls the work of others (e.g facilities managers or building owners who may contract others to work at height) to the extent they control the work.
Ladders can be used if after assessing the risks, the use of more suitable work equipment is not justified because of the low risk and short duration. Short duration is taken to be between 15 and 30 minutes depending upon the task. Ladders can also be used for low risk work where there are features on the site that mean a ladder must be used.
It is good practice to check the ladder before it is being used. If the ladder is not up to scratch your employee could fall from it. And as the HSE proclaim, "you don’t have to fall far to land hard. Last year nearly 100 workers a month suffered broken bones or head injuries following a fall from a ladder. Most of them didn’t fall very far, below head height."
Instant fines for ignoring health & safety rules mooted
On-the-spot penalties could soon be issued to firms who repeatedly disregard health and safety rules if a draft Bill - the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill becomes law later this year.
The draft Bill, published on 15th. May for consultation, confers powers on regulators such as local authorities, the HSE or the Environment Agency to issue fines to crack down on repeated offenders. The Bill is a response to the Macrory Review which identifies inconsistencies in powers available to regulators. Professor and Barrister, Richard Macrory says that the aim is not to make it easier to penalise businesses but to “create a system of sanctions that is more responsive and proportionate to the nature of non-compliance.”
If the Bill is made law, the Local Better Regulation Office will become a statutory body and be given powers to improve coordination and consistency between local authorities; issue guidance to local authorities; review and revise the national priorities and provide advice to government.
The Government hopes the draft Bill will become law by the end of the year.
Event transport faces emissions charges
Event transport costs face another hike due to plans to make the whole of London a ‘low emission zone’ by slapping a £200 per day charge for all goods and passenger vehicles that don’t comply with Euro 3 Emission standards. The fine for entering without paying the fee will be £1000, reduced to £500 if paid within 14 days. From February 2008 the Low Emission Zone will apply to lorries over 12 tonnes. From July 2008 the Low Emission Zone will also apply to all goods vehicles between 3.5 tonnes and 12 tonnes. Then, in 2010 vans between 1.205 tonnes and 3.5 tonnes will be affected. The rules will be tightened further in 2012 when vehicles over 3.5 tonnes will have to comply with Euro IV particulate emission levels.
Operators of affected lorries, buses and coaches that do not meet the Low Emission Zone standards (unless exempt or entitled to a 100% discount) will need to pay the charge for each charging day they are driven in the zone. The level of charge has supposedly been set in order to encourage operators to clean up their fleets rather than to incur a charge. Enforcement will be aided by fixed and mobile cameras with Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). The cameras will link to a national registration database which recognises the type of vehicle being used. It is unclear how this technology will recognise and charge vehicles registered overseas.
Of course the initiative is designed to improve air quality in London and who’s going to argue against that. The problems arise when you consider the different types of operators that use the roads in Greater London. Traditional, high mileage freight transporters replace vehicles regularly and it seems the timescale for lowering emission levels are geared around that fact. When you start to consider lower mileage operators such as, theatre, concert touring and exhibition companies, there’s a stark choice between offloading vehicles early onto a collapsing second hand market or paying higher charges. Both exercises generate extra costs that will be passed on to clients.
The facts were made clear during the consultation process, especially by the British Association of Removers whose members will be particularly badly affected. Facts, figures and protestations have been ignored, except for Showman’s vehicles because the owners would face hardship “if some of their more specialist vehicles were not provided with a 100% discount from the scheme. The numbers here are small and the discount is warranted because the specialised nature of these vehicles significantly reduces the options available to them to meet the emissions standards.” So particularly particulate-heavy funfairs in Peckham, Parsons Green and Putney will be OK.
Those more cynical readers will immediately see this as a money making exercise similar to the London Congestion Charge and speed cameras but with set up costs estimated at up to £10m and annual running costs of £7m it seems that projected income of £4m will simply result in a burden for Greater London’s Council Tax payers. Pity the poor removal companies that pay business rates to be based in London, Council Tax to live there and 200 quid every time a truck leaves the yard! Still, we’ll all be able to breathe easier while we’re looking at all the skyscrapers that Ken’s building…with cement…that generates 1 tonne of CO2 per tonne of product in manufacture. Are all those diesel-powered compressors compliant?
Laptops causing back problems
Laptops are causing problems to spines, necks and shoulders because of poor posture when using them in the workplace. Back specialists claim that as many as four in five patients have chronic nerve damage caused by working on laptops.
Musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) represent a growing occupational health risk. MSDs include neck ache from having the monitor either too far away or too close, shoulder pains, wrist pains, thumb pains and lower back pain. Eyesight can be affected and headaches are commonplace. More and more workplaces are using laptops with the increasing availability of wireless technology.
Gerald Whitehouse, Chief Executive of Chaos Ergonomics advises that the laptop should be used as a processor only. “The key to reducing health risks associated with using laptops,” he says, “is to use the laptop screen as a monitor and then add a small portable keyboard and separate mouse. Do not use the laptop on your lap. The monitor screen should be at the right height and at the right focal length and should be on a ten point screen size.”
He also adds that, “it is important that the user is trained to take regular breaks, say a two minute stretch every 20 minutes.” Laptop usage is governed by The Display Screen Equipment Regulations which state that appropriate training on laptop usage needs to be given, so that a user can set up their laptop properly, to reduce the risk of MSD and the user is able to undertake a simple risk assessment of their usage at any time.
Corporate Manslaughter Bill stalls
The Corporate Manslaughter Bill continues to ping-pong between the House of Lords and House of Commons, as the two Houses struggle to reach a compromise agreement. Earlier in the year, at the second reading of the Bill, the Lords passed an amendment that would have allowed the offence to apply to deaths in custody.
However, on 16 May the Commons rejected that amendment. It proposed that deaths in custody would not be covered in the Bill but that the secretary of state would be given power to amend the Bill anytime in the future, which would allow the offence of corporate manslaughter to apply to deaths in custody.
When the Bill passed back to the Lords for its agreement on this new amendment, the Lords dismissed the compromise and reinserted its old amendment. This means once again the Bill is back with the House of Commons. The Bill will not be passed until both Houses agree on the amendment. If an agreement is not reached by 17 July, the end of Parliament, the Bill will have to be scrapped.
HSE targets movement of goods
The HSE and Local Authorities (LA) are running a joint programme of inspections around the country to ensure that safety standards are met in the workplace for the movement of goods. The ‘Moving Goods Safely’ (MGS) initiative is a national project involving both the HSE and LA working in partnership to inspect the moving of goods within sectors where such activity forms a fundamental aspect of the business. The project aims to reduce injuries and ill-health arising from the movement of goods through the supply chain. The MGS initiative concentrates on risks to employees from workplace transport, manual handling, slips and trips and working at heights during the collection and delivery of goods.
Bill Callaghan, Chair of the Health and Safety Commission (HSC), said: “HSE inspectors will focus on high-risk areas with significant migrant employment, using inspection / enforcement, communication with all stakeholders – including workers – and appropriate sharing of intelligence to achieve our aims.”
Both LA and HSE inspectors can take enforcement action if they uncover serious cases of bad working practices. Steve Jorden, Head of Environmental Services at Wychavon District Council where one of the programmes of inspections started, said, “Joint initiatives such as ‘Moving Goods Safely’ are essential if we are to improve safety standards across all sectors of industry.”
Each year over 10,000 accidents in the road haulage, storage and warehousing sectors are reported to the Health and Safety Executive and to Local Authorities. Approximately 1,800 of these accidents are major injuries including up to 15 fatalities. These accidents cost this sector over £110 million every year.
The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HSWA) sets out an employer’s general duty with regards to injury and ill-health in the workplace. The health and safety duties require the duty holder to do everything possible to ensure the health and safety of others subject only to a defence of “so far as is reasonably practicable.”
Employers should record their risk assessments and the decisions to implement or reject certain safety measures so that risk can be identified and averted early.
Men banned from running business
Two men have been banned from running businesses after one of their employees, who worked excessive hours, was killed in a crash. Raymond Knapman was given a ten-year ban and Robert Legg five years at an Exeter Employment Tribunal, following an application by the Department of Trade and Industry under the Employment Agencies Act 1973. This action follows criminal proceedings against the two individuals in which Knapman was sentenced to two-and-half years in prison and Legg was fined £1,000.
During these proceedings, Knapman, who helped run Plymouth-based R & B Drivers, pleaded to eight counts of deception relating to supplying drivers to illegally carry out double shifts, as well as to failing to ensure the safety of persons in and not in his employment. It came out in court that he had persuaded drivers who had exceeded their hours behind the wheel to work; he had also taken money from other hauliers for the drivers' services even though some were so tired they had told him they had fallen asleep at the wheel.
Drivers that refused to work were punished with fewer shifts, leading some to take caffeine tablets to stay awake. Employee Mark Chadbourne, who worked for R & B Drivers, died after a head on collision. At the time of the accident he had far exceeded his hours; he had been driving for 33 hours with only seven hours and 50 minutes away from the wheel. It has been suggested that the crash was caused when he fell asleep at the wheel; however, this could not be proved conclusively, as it is also possible that Chadbourne suffered a heart attack – because of this Knapman and Legg were acquitted of manslaughter charges.
In another recent driving at work case, the importance of not fostering a long hours culture was underlined further after a firm was found liable for a road accident in which one of its workers was paralysed. At the time of the accident the employee in question had been working extremely long hours, and he fell asleep at the wheel. The Court of Appeal found that comments made by the company’s managing director, such as 'Eating's cheating' and 'You can sleep when you're dead', summed up the company's philosophy. The injured employee could now be in line to receive over £1m damages.
Cases such as these send a warning to employers that if they cause or permit their employees to work very long hours, and drive at times when they are likely to be very tired, they could be liable if that tiredness leads to an accident. Jeremy Hay and John Maslen comment: “Checks should be put in place by management to make sure that hours worked / spent driving are ‘reasonable’ for all staff, and that drivers are definitely not working / driving for excessive periods on successive days.”
Workman killed in fall from ladder
A teenage workman fell to his death from a height of 20 feet as his ladder slipped underneath him. Health and safety inspector, Ian Evans described this case as the “worst” he had ever seen. The young worker, Peter Evans of 18 years of age was working on the windows of a home in Leigh. Whilst reaching sideways to try to knock in a nail, the ladder slipped underneath him and the teenager fell to the ground and died.
A post mortem showed that he suffered several skull fractures and massive brain damage. Ian Evans told the inquest: “The state of the ladders was key in the accident.” He added that at least one of the rungs of the metal ladder was missing and the remainder were all damaged. The rubber feet which should have been on the foot of the ladder were missing and no one had been holding the ladder to stabilise it while Mr Evans climbed.
Speaking after the inquest, he also stated that the biggest cause of workplace deaths is falling from height and warned people to check the conditions of their ladder before use. The Work at Height Regulations 2005 apply to all work at height where there is a risk of a fall liable to cause personal injury. They place duties on employers, the self-employed, and any person who controls the work of others (e.g facilities managers or building owners who may contract others to work at height) to the extent they control the work.
Ladders can be used if after assessing the risks, the use of more suitable work equipment is not justified because of the low risk and short duration. Short duration is taken to be between 15 and 30 minutes depending upon the task. Ladders can also be used for low risk work where there are features on the site that mean a ladder must be used.
It is good practice to check the ladder before it is being used. If the ladder is not up to scratch your employee could fall from it. And as the HSE proclaim, you don’t have to fall far to land hard. Last year nearly 100 workers a month suffered broken bones or head injuries following a fall from a ladder. Most of them didn’t fall very far, below head height.
Orchestras face turning down the volume
Orchestras could be encouraged to play more quietly as part of new European Union health and safety legislation. Orchestra managers could even get their musicians to wear earplugs to protect their hearing. Recommendations could include getting orchestras to stop playing too many noisy pieces of music in one performance.
The Control of Noise at Work Regulations came into force in April last year and cap daily or weekly average exposure to 85 decibels. But the music and entertainment industry was given two more years to implement the new rules. Now a music and entertainment working group, whose members include the Association of British Orchestras, the Production Services Association, the English National Opera, the Royal Opera House, Equity, the Health and Safety Executive and the Musicians Union, is discussing how the guidelines could apply to the music industry.
The guidelines could suggest that orchestra managers balance loud works by the likes of Wagner and Strauss with quieter pieces by Mozart and Handel. Guidelines being drawn up by the Health and Safety executive could also encourage musicians to lower the volume during rehearsals. This would allow them to perform at full volume later without breaking the permitted levels. Individual players could be surrounded by an acoustic screen, and musicians could wear earplugs especially designed for orchestras.
Thorben Dittes, projects manager at the Association of British Orchestras, said: "The most important issue is that we get to protect our players' hearing. "There are a whole range of measures in which this can be achieved. There may be scheduling difficulties at the beginning but people will just get used to it and it will become just another factor in the planning process. This might lead to a different balance in the repertoire but it doesn't mean that we're not going to have Wagner and then Strauss. It's unlikely that orchestra managers are going to programme Stravinsky's Rite of Spring and then Mahler's Eighth Symphony but that would be unusual combination anyway."
The Health and Safety Executive said it was too early to say what the guidelines would contain. A spokesman said they would not be drawn up until after a public consultation process begins in July. "No-one wants to get into a situation where the public enjoyment of music is limited because of the new regulations. That's why we have set up this working group to look at solutions that won't reduce the public enjoyment and quality of the music."
Liz Forbes, the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra's concerts director, said there could be resistance to the use of earplugs. She said that re-hearing at a lower volume could cause problems because conductors needed to know what the music sounded like on stage. She told The Stage newspaper: "Very few concerts at the moment use earplugs… They're not ideal for hearing the ensemble and what your colleagues are doing."
