News for 2008
June
Many fire certificates found to be worthless
Too many businesses are still of the opinion that, because they once had a fire certificate and their circumstances haven't changed, they are still complying with fire safety law. But, says Alan Cox, fire safety consultant, this isn't the case, and fire certificates "were not worth the paper they were written on". Cox said that occupiers still don't understand their responsibilities under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO), which came into force in October 2006, and that as a result he is coming across some "worrying situations", indicating that the RRO isn't working in practice.
As an example, Cox explained how he visited a computer fair at the National Motorcycle Museum in Birmingham and found obstructed fire exits, fire doors wedged open and obstructed and trailing cables under fire doors. Cox says: "Who would have thought that only a few years ago they suffered a multi-million pound fire. Clearly even after such a big loss and the new legislation the message had not reached home here."
Fire safety consultant Clive Raybould agrees that organisations are still failing to take responsibility for fire safety seriously enough: "A large number of companies still see fire safety as a one-off or once a year task. They still do not see the need to build fire safety management into their everyday business work practices (as we tend to with health and safety). However the fire safety reform brings about the need for a culture change and this does not happen overnight."
So why has the RRO apparently failed to bring about the change it was designed to? Cox believes that people are always at fault: "Even with the safety building that you can design it's usually people that defeat the safety precautions".
Raybould agrees, to some extent, stating the opinion that a lack of auditing, checking and management of fire safety standards is the biggest failing in fire safety. He says: "On the fire risk assessments I have carried out, I have found approximately 30% of fire exit doors fitted with Redlum Bolts do not operate correctly. This type of issue will only be solved by good, frequent management checks."
Scaffolder imprisoned for accident
A scaffolder has been sentenced to three months in prison following an incident in which an employee suffered significant injuries after falling while dismantling scaffold. The employee and a colleague, neither of whom had been trained were dismantling scaffold when a badly supported scaffold board gave way. One of the workers fell 6m to the ground, suffering significant injuries to his foot and spine.
Philip Wolstenholme was summonsed to appear at Sheffield Magistrates Court where he pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. He also pleaded guilty to contravening the requirements of a Prohibition Notice served by the HSE after incidents in the previous year. The notice specifically prohibited him from allowing staff who had not been given proper training to erect or dismantle scaffolding. Due to the serious nature of the offences, the Magistrates referred the case to the Crown Court for sentencing.
Clarification for new H&S Bill
The MP behind the new Health and Safety (Offences) Bill has clarified when imprisonment would be an option for breaches of health and safety legislation.
Speaking to Workplace Law Network, Keith Hill, MP for Streatham, explained that he brought in the Bill to toughen health and safety penalties because, as well as being an issue close to his heart, he was aware that the Bill had been presented in the House of Commons four times before, and had failed every time:
“As a bit of an old timer, it was a good challenge to see if my kind of Parliamentary skills could enable it to succeed; and lo and behold, we seem to have succeeded.”
The Bill, if it receives Royal Assent, will introduce no new compliance or regulation costs and will only affect those who break the law. However, the Bill will bring in the option of imprisonment for a wide range of health and safety offences.
Hill says that, in broad terms, the cases that might lead to someone being imprisoned would be:
- cases involving recklessness about the possibility of serious harm;
- deception intended to undermine enforcement;
- deliberately creating serious risk with a view to profit; or
- serious neglect leading to major injury or death.
He gives these examples of where, over the years, judges have repeatedly complained about the lack of imprisonment as a sanction for some grievous crimes: “There has been, unfortunately and sadly, a succession of cases of cowboy gas fitters whose botched work has led to deaths as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning, there have been gas explosions in coal mines as a result of criminal negligence on the part of managers, and people have been illegally involved in asbestos stripping. For a whole range of cases it has been found that all that was available to the courts under the existing legislation were fines.”
Hill also says that the Bill will complement the Corporate Manslaughter Act, but would not replace it: “It isn’t my intention that these new powers of imprisonment (if we were to get them) should become grounds for resisting the case for mandatory health and safety duties on directors. I think that is a case for which there is an entirely separate argument, and I want to see that properly pursued.”
The Bill is now passing through the House of Lords, and looks set to become law by the end of the Parliamentary year.
Company fined for accident
A transport company has lost its appeal against the £28,000 fine handed to it after an incident left an employee permanently disabled. Earlier in the year, Harris Transport Ltd was fined:
- £4,000 for failing to provide suitable lighting (maximum £5,000) under the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992;
- £4,000 for a poor risk assessment (maximum £5,000) under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999;
- £20,000 for breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (maximum £20,000);
- £8986.90 fees; and
- a victim surcharge of £15.
The company appealed, but now has to pay the fine in full plus additional court costs of £5,300.Worker Lee McMahon suffered severe injuries to both legs when he was run over by a forklift truck whilst working at Harris Transport in Southampton. An HSE investigation discovered a systemic breakdown in Harris Transport’s health and safety management.
The incident occurred despite McMahon wearing appropriate high visibility clothing. At the time, very dark conditions were reported because the workplace lighting was deficient, and there were general maintenance problems with the forklift trucks. There was also no separation between vehicles and pedestrians, creating a dangerous situation in an environment where the lack of lighting restricted visibility. Additional factors were that peripheral equipment on the forklift trucks created a number of blind spots and drivers had little or no training with new forklift trucks.
Ray Kelly, the HSE prosecuting Inspector, says: "This case illustrated starkly how easily normal work places can become accidental scenes when health and safety management systems breakdown. Some 15 months after the accident, Mr. McMahon, the injured person, is still in great pain, is unable to work and never likely to again.
"The HSE were very disappointed that Harris Transport Ltd felt the need to challenge the original penalty, which had followed a very serious accident, resulting in the permanent disablement of one of their employees, an accident that could have very easily resulted in his death."
Risk assessment campaign starts
A two-year European campaign to raise awareness of the need for workplace risk assessments is due to start on 24th. June. The European Campaign on Risk Assessment aims to promote “an integrated management approach that takes into account the different stages of risk assessment” and raise awareness of the legal responsibility to assess risks in the workplace. The UK campaign is being spearheaded by the HSE.
According to the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (OSHA): “Risk assessment is not an objective in itself but a powerful tool for identifying the need for preventative measures. It is not just a matter of checking off a list of recognised hazards; it has to take into account the less visible ones, and the interactions between different factors.
“Everybody has an interest in an evaluation of the risks and corrective measures to be put in place, and everyone in the workplace has a valuable contribution to make; assessing [health and safety] risks is in the interest of both companies and their workers. It is a partnership approach and should be carried out with the active involvement of the whole workforce. Workers have to be involved and consulted in the risk assessment process.
The OSHA approach to risk assessment and prevention is to:
- avoid risks;
- evaluate risks which cannot be avoided;
- combat risks at the source; adapt the work to the individual;
- adapt to technical progress;
- replace the dangerous with the non-dangerous or the less dangerous;
- develop a coherent overall prevention policy;
- give collective protective measures priority over individual protective measures; and
- give appropriate instructions, information and training to workers.
The Five steps to risk assessment suggests that employers and managers consider the following five steps when putting together a risk assessment:
- Identify the hazards.
- Decide who might be harmed and how.
- Evaluate the risks and decide on precaution.
- Record your findings and implement them.
- Review your assessment and update if necessary.
More details about the HSE’s campaign will be announced on the launch date.
New health & safety Bill enters the Lords
The Health and Safety (Offences) Bill has cleared the House of Commons and is now to be debated on by the House of Lords. The Bill, which would raise the maximum fines and make prison an option for health and safety offences, has received widespread support in the House of Commons. According to Anne McGuire, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Government will welcome the Bill if the House of Lords pass it:
“The Government intend to spread the message about the Bill’s implications. It will underpin the work of the HSE and local authorities in ensuring that employers take health and safety management seriously and act to keep people safe and healthy. “The Department for Work and Pensions and HSE officials are drawing up plans to publicise the new Act and the increased penalties.”
Keith Hill, the MP behind the Private Members’ Bill, said during the final debate in the House of Commons that the Bill will ensure appropriate punishment for those who are negligent or would seek to cut costs by ignoring health and safety: “I very much doubt that there are ever circumstances in the workplace in which a single solitary employee is at risk. If the health and safety provisions are not being properly exercised, it is my strong suspicion that that presents a risk for every person who is operating in that workplace.”
The Bill may also extend punishments to employees if they behave in a way that puts the lives of other workers in danger.
It is the fifth time a Bill to raise the level of punishment for health and safety offences has been introduced to Parliament, but the first time such a Bill looks set to become law.
Festival told to turn it down
The sex is supposed to be safe, the drugs could get you a jail term, and now even the rock and roll has to be turned down. Scotland's biggest rock festival has been ordered to cut its volume level amid fears that fans, bands and roadies could suffer permanent hearing damage after standing by giant speaker stacks for hours.
Peak noise levels at next month's T in the Park have been reduced from something similar to a jet aircraft taking off to the equivalent of an orchestra at full volume. The cut ordered by environmental health officers means the intensity of noise produced by bands such as REM and the Stereophonics will drop by half.
Health experts last night welcomed the move and said even with the reduction, noise levels near the stage will remain potentially harmful. But die-hard music fans condemned the move, saying anything less than "pinned to the wall" volume could rob the event of its excitement.
This year's T in the Park is expected to attract 250,000 music fans over three days to hear 114 bands on six stages. Since the first festival in 1994, the event has become one of the UK's biggest and most successful. But health experts worldwide are increasingly concerned about the increase in hearing damage suffered by young people as a result of listening to MP3 players and live music. A new study from Australia says that 70% of 18 to 34-year-olds reported tinnitus-like ringing in their ears, compared with 50% of the over-55s.
Now Perth and Kinross Council, the body responsible for licensing T in the Park, has decided to impose the first noise cut in the event's history following talks with hearing safety experts. The maximum level has been cut from 140 decibels (dB) to 137dB. While a 3dB cut may seem minor, sound experts said it amounted to a significant and noticeable reduction. The reduction means the intensity of noise – and the resulting potential for hearing loss – will be cut by about half.
A spokeswoman for the council confirmed: "Discussion with the organisers in relation to audience exposure to noise and employee exposure to noise, which is covered by the Noise at Work Regulations, has led to agreement that the maximum peak level should be reduced to 137 dB."
She added that health and safety experts will be checking noise levels at the event on July 11 to 13.
A spokeswoman for the Royal National Institution for the Deaf, said: "It's good news but we still advise that music lovers should take earplugs with them and take breaks from listening to music which is too loud."
But music writer Colin Somerville questioned the move. "Music is supposed to be loud. The best gig experiences are in clubs with sticky floors and the sound levels so loud you're being pinned to the wall. And with outside festivals you often find that the sound can be blown away by the wind, even when they get it up to 140 decibels. The festival vibe is about huge speakers cranked up to the maximum levels."
Craig Hunter, a sound engineer at Edinburgh rehearsal studios Banana Row, said: "The difference in volume between 140 and 137 is actually pretty substantial. The difference between 70 and 73 decibels is not that major, but once you're at the very high volumes, three decibels is a very big difference."
In 1989, Pete Townshend of the Who admitted he had sustained "very severe hearing damage" over his career. Canadian singer Neil Young, Beatles producer George Martin, and Fleetwood Mac drummer Mick Fleetwood have all spoken of hearing problems.
In 2004, a German concert promoter was ordered to pay £3,000 damages for "pain and suffering" to a woman who alleged that her hearing was damaged during a Bon Jovi gig. The woman stood about three to five metres from the speakers during the band's Nuremberg concert.
But many T in the Park regulars are unhappy at the change. Martin MacLeod said: "I don't think I'd like the volume turned down. I have been there and found that when I was far away from the stage I couldn't hear a thing.
"I suppose some of it is loud though. I have been in one of the venues there, the Slam Tent, and when I came out my ears were ringing."
No one from T in the Park was available for comment.
Amplifiers that go all the way up to eleven
Rob Reiner's 1984 comedy Spinal Tap lampooned rock music's obsession with volume. In one of the movie's most famous scenes, Spinal Tap guitarist Nigel Tufnel discusses his favourite amplifier with "filmmaker" Marty DiBergi.
Nigel Tufnel
The numbers all go to 11. Look, right across the board, 11, 11, 11 and...
Marty DiBergi
Oh, I see. And most amps go up to 10?
Tufnel
Exactly.
DiBergi
Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Tufnel
Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not 10. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at 10.
You're on 10 here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on 10 on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
DiBergi
I don't know.
Tufnel
Nowhere.
Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
DiBergi
Put it up to 11.
Tufnel
Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
DiBergi
Why don't you just make 10 louder and make 10 be the top number and make that a little louder?
Tufnel:(pause]
These go to 11.
Study reveals perceptions in health & safety
An HSE study, exploring whether managers are unnecessarily banning activities because of health and safety concerns, has found that it is only a perception that health and safety has gone too far, and in practice a much more sensible approach is being taken. The aim of the study was to assess the extent to which disproportionate health and safety management occurs, and whether it is particular to certain sectors.
The HSE reviewed more than 100 media reports, surveyed ‘decision makers’ and IOSH members, and conducted case studies. It found that, whilst the media tends to report out-of-the-ordinary health and safety stories (such as trees being cut down to remove the risk of people slipping on fruit), the vast majority of respondents did not report similar activities occurring in their workplaces.
The study also found that media reports of ‘health and safety gone mad’ are usually incomplete, leading to a misleading impression of the extent of the problem. Some of the anecdotes of disproportionate health and safety were also found to be untrue, coming from hearsay rather than from actual reported cases.
The main reason for excessive health and safety measures being implemented in a workplace was fear of litigation should something go wrong; however, the study found that there is little evidence of an increase in employers’ liability compensation claims within the area of occupational health and safety.
Out of the minority that did report excessive health and safety measures in their workplace, the most frequently cited examples of banned activities were:
- snowball fights in the education sector;
- volleyball in the emergency services sector;
- bouncy castles in local Government;
- manual lifting of patients in the health sector;
- firework displays in the leisure industry; and
- use of pedestals or ladders in industry and services.
Mark Wheeler from the HSE said that risk prevention should be about proportionality: “Risk assessments seem to get some people a little frightened, and they think they need to do either an outrageous amount of work (which isn’t relevant or appropriate to their circumstances) or they have to get an expert in and pay them an enormous amount of money to do it for them.
“Actually, risk assessment is largely about common sense, so what we want people to focus on is the stuff that really does matter; the situations which, if not managed properly, give rise to unnecessary serious injuries and deaths.”
Wheeler gives the example of slips, trips and falls in the workplace; on the one hand a slip could lead to a “red face and a sore backside”, but on the other it could lead to a much more substantial injury, so is a risk to be taken seriously. "You cannot prevent every single injury that might occur,” says Wheeler. “The law recognises that by imposing the caveat on the duty of care of ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’.”
Manslaughter charge after fireworks fire
The owner of a UK firework factory has been charged with manslaughter, following the death of two firefighters at the East Sussex site.
The company, which was known at the time of the deaths as Festival Fireworks UK Ltd, is one of the biggest firework importers in the UK and was responsible for the Millennium display along the River Thames and the Lord Mayor's Show in London. The site, licensed to store over 20 tonnes of imported fireworks to prepare fuses and build displays, exploded on 3 December 2006. As the case is ongoing, the Crown Prosecution Service was unable to say any more about what the causes of the explosion might have been.
While tackling the fire, two firefighters died and 12 other people were injured, including nine members of East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service, a Sussex Police Sergeant and two members of the public. A Sussex Police spokesman said: "The Crown Prosecution Service has advised Sussex Police to charge Martin and Nathan Winter the owner of the company and his son with the manslaughter of two fire crew. The company, now known as Alpha Fireworks Ltd, has been summonsed for breaches of the Manufacture and Storage of Explosives Regulations 2005.”
The main requirements of the Regulations are:
- anyone manufacturing or storing explosives must take appropriate measures to prevent fire or explosion; to limit the extent of any fire or explosion should one occur; and protect persons in the event of a fire or explosion. These are the key requirements of the Regulations and are backed up by extensive guidance in the Approved Code of Practice;
- in most cases a separation distance must be maintained between the explosives building and neighbouring inhabited buildings. This is intended to ensure that risks to those living or working in the area are kept to an acceptable level. If there is development in this separation zone then the quantity that may be kept must be reduced;
- with certain exceptions a licence is required for the manufacture or storage of explosives. The HSE licenses manufacturing activities because of the greater risks involved. The HSE also licenses larger explosives storage facilities. In most cases, stores holding less than two tonnes of explosives are either licensed or registered by the local authority or the police; and
- the HSE may not grant a licence for a manufacturing facility or, in most cases, store until the local authority has given its assent (normally following a public hearing). This is an important safeguard in the present system that is to be retained.
Firm fined for fire safety breaches
A small in London has been fined £8,000 in fines and costs for what was described as “serious breaches” of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
The business was visited on 20 March 2007 and a number of faults were found including no emergency lighting in the basement, no fire alarm and no smoke detection system. A notice was issued giving four months to fix the problems but when inspectors returned on 20 July they discovered that no work had been carried out.
The Judge noted that the offences were serious breaches of fire regulations and that the defendant had a history of non-compliance. She continued that had there been a fire at the premises, there was a possibility of someone dying due to the lack of fire precautions.
Thames Magistrates' Court fined the owner, Mustafa Ismail, £4,000 for nine breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. Assistant Commissioner for Fire Safety Regulation Max Hood said: “It is important that business owners and employers understand that they must take responsibility for fire safety very seriously within their properties.”
Opt-out for British workers
An agreement has been reached in Europe to preserve the right for UK workers to opt out of the Working Time Regulations. The European Commission had previously proposed to restrict the opt-out provision, which has been frequently used by employers and employees in the UK to keep working hours above the maximum 48 hours per week permitted under the Working Time Directive.
MEPs also previously voted to reject the opt-out within three years of a new Directive being implemented, which led to the UK and other member states stalling the progress of the Commission’s proposals. However, on 9 June an agreement was reached, meaning the UK can keep the opt-out provision. The agreement also aims to clear up the confusion about whether ‘on call time’ is counted as working time.
The agreement was reached on the same day as another agreement was reached on agency workers and equal treatment. A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR) confirmed that agency workers will be given equal treatment with other staff after 12 weeks, and this equal treatment will refer to pay.
The spokesperson also said that whilst these agreements have been reached at the EU Employment Council, they have only been agreed at a political level and still need to go through the European Parliament. This means it is unlikely that any changes will affect employers this year.
Business Secretary John Hutton says the agreements are a very good deal for the UK: “This agreement means that people remain free to earn overtime and businesses can cope during busy times. Securing the right for people to work longer if they choose to is hugely valuable to the British economy.”
The current Working Time Regulations allow a worker to opt out of the 48-hour week restriction by written agreement in a number of ways, including by way of an amendment to the individual’s contract of employment, but it must be in writing and must be terminable by the worker on a minimum of seven days’ (but not more than three months’) notice.
Even if the worker has agreed to opt out he or she cannot be required to work excessively long hours if this creates a reasonably foreseeable risk to health and safety.
Prosecution over fire safety breaches
A company has been successfully prosecuted by the London Fire Brigade after its fire safety breaches were exposed by a major blaze in Hammersmith last year. P.T.F Properties Limited pleaded guilty to four fire safety breaches and was ordered to pay £17,000 in fines and costs by West London Magistrates Court.
On 1 April 2007 a fire started in a first floor flat above a café in King Street, Hammersmith. Eight fire engines and around 40 firefighters were needed to tackle the blaze.
Because the fire doors and fire detection system had not been properly maintained within the property, smoke and fire quickly spread and blocked the single means of escape. Four residents were trapped before they could make their escape. Two of the residents were helped to safety across a first floor flat roof by neighbours. Another had to hang and drop from the second floor to the first floor terrace. The fourth resident was rescued by firefighters via a ladder.
The Hammersmith and Fulham Fire Safety Team found numerous breaches of fire safety regulations following the fire. P.T.F Properties Limited pleaded guilty to four breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. These were:
- failing to maintain a fire alarm;
- failing to maintain a fire door; and
- two charges of failing to provide a safe means of escape.
Assistant Commissioner for Fire Safety Regulation Max Hood says: “Businesses have to understand that they must take their responsibility for fire safety precautions seriously. If they don’t we will use the full force of the law."
HSA update PUWER Code of Practice
The HSE has issued a new edition of the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) for the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER 98). The ACoP has been entirely updated to reflect developments in legislation.
PUWER 98 applies to the provision of all work equipment, including mobile and lifting equipment. It applies to all workplaces and work situations where the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSW Act) applies and extends outside Great Britain to certain offshore activities in British territorial waters and on the UK Continental Shelf.
The frustrations of the festival
Research commissioned by O2 ahead of next month’s O2 Wireless Festival reveals that while Britain’s love affair with summer music festivals is as strong as ever, toilet facilities dominate our frustrations. Poor or dirty toilet facilities were the number one festival frustration for 78% of those questioned with national obsession queuing also a big frustration.
- 78% of Brits cite dirty toilets their most hated festival experience
- 42% prefer a day-long music festival with no overnight stay
- Brits unprepared for our summer downpours with only 7% considering Wellington boots a festival essential
Top 10 Festival Frustrations
- Poor or dirty toilet facilities
- Long queues for the toilets
- No washing/shower facilities
- No secure storage facilities
- Long queues at the bar
- Long entry queues to the venues
- The journey home
- Losing your friends in the crowd
- Not knowing when your favourite band is playing
- . No where to sit or relax
The inimitable British festival spirit
It seems that many Brits have forgotten scenes of floating tents and must be confident of a hot summer with only 7% of those questioned cities wellies and/or a waterproof coat as a festival essential. In fact, the traditional British summer doesn’t have a negative impact for many festival goers with half (50%) of respondents saying that wet and wild weather would not negatively affect their overall festival experience.
After cash, the top festival essential, beating wellies, ear plugs, sunscreen and a fully charged mobile, was having enough alcohol to last the festival.
Britain no longer loves queuing
When it comes to another summer tradition - festival queues – more than a third (35%) of overall respondents object to the long toilet queues so often found at festivals, while nearly a quarter (22%) of festival goers are frustrated by the length of bar queues. Men are the most impatient, with 27% wanting faster drinks service, while just 22% of women would speed up the beer service! A fifth (20%) of respondents would like to get into the action quicker with reduced festival entry queues.
Festivals go green
Nearly two thirds (65%) of festival goers in the UK would do their bit to save the environment by retaining and re-using their drinking cup at festivals, while a quarter (25%) of Brits would happily complete 10 minutes of bicycle pedal power to recharge their flat mobile phone battery at a festival.
Brits still have Festival funds despite credit crunch
Despite the current credit crunch, more than 70% of UK festival goers are happy to spend at least £50 per day at a festival, with 82% spending up to £70 per day. In addition, with nearly a fifth (18%) of respondents said they were happy to pay a higher ticket price to cover the cost of green, environmental initiatives at a festival.
New stress guidelines published
New research and guidance on the behaviours required by managers to prevent and reduce stress in the workplace has been published. The research, jointly funded by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD), the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and Investors in People (IIP), is part of a three-year project to identify the management behaviours that will help organisations reduce stress at work and comply with the HSE stress management standards.
The research has led to the development of a competency framework setting out the key management behaviours for managing stress at work. The behaviours are grouped under 12 competency headings including: acting with integrity; managing conflict; empathetic engagement; participative/empowering; and managing emotions.
According to the report published on the HSE website, the key messages for line managers from the research are that stress management is a part of normal general management activities; and that there is no single behaviour needed for effective stress management, so managers need to think about using a complementary set of behaviours.
Judith Hackitt, HSE Chair, says: “The management competency research provides managers with a clear understanding of those behaviours that should be shown and those that should be avoided to help minimise stress and improve wellbeing for those that they manage. This research points to the need for managers to embed stress management into everyday people management activities and into their organisation's culture.”
In 2004, the HSE published its long-awaited Stress Management Standards, designed to help employers manage the issue and minimise the impact of stress on business. The Management Standards cover six key areas of work design that are said to cover the primary sources of stress at work. The six standards require that employees should indicate (presumably after a survey) that:
- demands - they are able to cope with the demands of their jobs, and systems are in place locally to respond to any individual concerns;
- control - they are able to have a say about the way they do their work, and systems are in place locally to respond to any individual concerns;
- support - they receive adequate information and support from their colleagues and superiors, and systems are in place locally to respond to any individual concerns;
- relationships - they are not subjected to unacceptable behaviours (for example, bullying at work) and systems are in place locally to respond to any individual concerns;
- role - they understand their role and responsibilities, and systems are in place locally to respond to any individual concerns;
- change - the organisation engages them frequently when undergoing an organisational change, and systems are in place locally to respond to any individual concerns.
Despite the standards having been in place for over three years, stress and other mental health problems are still the second biggest cause of working time lost to sickness absence, costing the UK an estimated £26bn a year. So how does this new research and guidance compare or relate to the management standards?
According to the HSE report, “In terms of UK Government policy on health and safety, particularly policy relating to the HSE Management Standards, the research provides an additional approach for employers to tackle stress in the workplace and implement the Management Standards, together with mechanisms to help them do so”.
However, it also identifies the need for further research and guidance to support employers to manage stress in the workplace. It states:
There remains a need for the HSE to offer more guidance, in terms of a flexible tool kit, providing training materials, case studies, guidance and sample tools. Longitudinal case studies of different approaches to integrate the research findings into organisations’ existing culture and practice will be required to ensure that HSE guidance provides appropriate support for employers.
Research should also be conducted to design and test interventions that develop managers’ management competence in the prevention and reduction of stress. There is also a need to capture data on organisations integrating the framework and the tool into their existing processes, in order to develop longitudinal casestudies.
“Through providing managers with a clear specification of the relevant behaviours and a means to assess whether those behaviours are already part of their repertoire,” the report says, “the research can support managers in behaving in ways that prevent and reduce stress for their staff. The development of the ‘Stress management competency indicator tool’ opens the possibility of assessing the relevant behaviours through self-assessment, upward feedback or 360 degree feedback. For managers who are involved in other stress management activities, the framework and the tool can provide a useful starting point from which to approach solutions.”
IOSH highlight media bias on H&S issues
The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH), has “hit out” at the number of cases reported in the media where health and safety is held up as responsible for unpopular decisions. In the past month IOSH has been responding to an average of two news stories a week, the latest of which involved East Midlands Trains refusing to let a disabled passenger onto a train with his mobility scooter on health and safety grounds. Ray Hurst, the president of IOSH, says this comes from people’s desire “to take the easy way out rather than come up with sensible solutions”.
Among these were the police officers who could not break up a rave while it was dark because of health and safety claims, which was reported in the Daily Telegraph. In a letter in response Hurst disagreed with “the use of health and safety as a convenient explanation not to act.” He also wrote that he and other health and safety professionals resented it being used as an easy and believable excuse to justify unpopular decisions.
Another well publicised example was when Hatfield Broad Oak’s village fair asked permission from Essex County Council’s highways department to put up bunting and was handed six A4 sheets of paper with conditions, as reported by the Daily Mail. Hurst wrote in a reply to the Mail that this was a clear case of someone over applying the best practice rather that taking a sensible approach.
Over-application of health and safety featured in the Work and Pensions Committee report published in April. In it Judith Hackitt, Chair of the HSE, agreed that there was “a good deal of evidence” that businesses, and some of the organisations which advise them, over-interpret legislation, which leads to the production of voluminous risk assessments, not required under legislation. The report then draws connections between this over-complication and evidence provided by the TUC, which highlighted some employers, mainly SMEs, are not undertaking risk assessments.
IOSH acknowledges that some of the outrageous reports do have legitimate health and safety issues behind them and advises these cases are considered fairly. One example is that of Gosport Borough Council in Hampshire, which, the Daily Telegraph reported, was having to pay £35,000 for an extra bin man and a new vehicle to cope with heavy garden refuse bags. In the article the Chairman of the Council’s Community and Environment Board said that it was “health and safety gone mad” and a local resident said that, as the previous situation had worked successfully for several years, the rules seemed “to have no common sense.”
Hurst responded saying that “these measures are a far cheaper option than losing one of their employees to injury or ill health from lifting too many heavy sacks each day”, pointing out that musculoskeletal disorders cost industry 10.7 million working days each year, and leave people off work for an average of 16.5 days each time.
IOSH recommends taking a balanced approach, says Hurst; “It seems [that] organisations are all too ready to ban things on health and safety grounds because they believe it’s too difficult to find the solution. Professional health and safety advisors are here to help find cost-effective and sensible solutions to problems. We are not out to ban people’s fun, but we are here to ensure people get work done safely and healthily.”
Extreme moshing causing concerns
The lights in the stadium dim as the drumbeat of the band sends the crowd into a frenzy. A voice screams out, "open the pit!" and an empty circle materialises in front of the stage. A whirlpool of bodies forms around its rim and people begin to plunge into the centre. The formation, known as a "death circle", is a new form of extreme moshing being embraced by fans but raising safety concerns among crowd management authorities.
Seven years after 16-year-old Jessica Michalik died in a crowd surge at the Big Day Out festival in Sydney, moshing - the mass movement of spectators to live music - is alive and well. "[Moshing activities] happen all over the place, at any and every venue with a reasonably sized crowd," says Jon Corbishley, risk and safety manager at Australian Concert and Entertainment Security.
The "wall of death" is another moshing formation, in which the crowd separates into two facing sides, leaving a gap of at least 10m, and then violently ram into each other. "We make the wall of death because it is a thrill," says 16-year-old concertgoer Lucas Fabi from the inner Sydney suburb of Pyrmont. "The adrenalin you've got in your body ... it just bursts out while you're moshing. It's just fun."
"Formations like this are hard to control at large concerts", says Philip Eggeling, operations manager of Playbill Venues. "It's really hard to control the crowd when they're running around in circles." But the extent of moshing depends on the type of concert. "You wouldn't get it at a James Blunt concert," says Neil Stalker, operations manager at Sydney Entertainment Centre.
Scott, editor of the Adelaide street press magazine Rip It Up, says moshing is seen by many young people as a rite of passage. "From teen experience, emerging from a mosh pit with a black eye, a fat lip and a cut head was not so much a painful experience as a badge of honour," he says. Eden Vander Kallen, 17, of Abbotsford in Sydney, appears to bear this out: "I've been in the wall of death, I've got a scar on my leg to prove it."
But participants insist they don't set out to cause harm. They describe moshing as a release of tension and an expression of belonging and unity, as well as a sign of appreciation for the music. "Real moshing is the release of expression through physical means," says Croydon teenager Jaxon Brown. "It should be how you feel expressed through your body, with no brain to filter it. Pretty much anything is okay as long as it is indirect and there is unity."
Enthusiasts says friendships and camaraderie are also fostered in the mosh pit. "You know you meet someone cool when you hit them in the pit and they say 'good hit'," says Eden Vander Kallen. "I have made a few friends like that." But being swept involuntarily into a circular stampede of bodies isn't everyone's idea of fun. "If you're in the wrong spot at the wrong time, you have no choice whether you want to do it or not. That's what scares me the most," says Silvia Pinneri, 18, of Denistone.
Philip Eggeling says not participating in moshing can even be more dangerous than joining in. "Unfortunately at the periphery of these pits there's always people who merely want to watch the show and don't want to partake in the frenetic and physical displays of the ... pit. For them the situation can be antisocial and dangerous, since they're stationary obstacles that are often struck by errant moshers."
Some bands actively encourage extreme moshing behaviour, says Tim Cashmere, senior music writer at the online magazine Undercover.com.au. "I've lost count of the amount of bands I've seen demanding a ... circle pit ... of an audience that is only too happy to oblige," he says. Other bands have encouraged new variations on moshing formations, such as the "wall of carnage" and the "tsunami of death".
Dr Mick Upton, head of the Centre for Crowd Management Studies at Bucks New University in Britain, said 25 people died "at the front of the stage" in concerts around the world between 1974 and 2002. The figures include nine concertgoers were crushed to death at a Pearl Jam concert in Denmark in 2000.
Under recent legislative changes, Australian patrons who mosh do so at their own risk and venues cannot be held liable for injuries. However, since Jessica Michalik's death in 2001, new measures have been taken to prevent huge crowd surges and dangerous behaviour.
Moshers say they follow their own pit etiquette, such as immediately helping anyone who has fallen down, removing spike bands before entering the pit and not kicking, punching, groping or sexually assaulting anyone. And, says Acer Arena security supervisor Eddie Silvio, concertgoers who breach safety rules find themselves turfed out.
