Health and Safety / CDM Update Seminar
The BSA team will hold their next seminar at the Premier Inn, Mirfield, West Yorkshire on Tuesday 10th November 2009.
The meeting time is set for around 6.00pm (evening buffet) for a 6.30pm start. The formal program finishes at 8.00pm but there will be an informal networking and catch up session afterwards.
- CDM Review, the calls for change and how the impact they may have
- Current and forthcoming HSE initiatives
- The new guidance for First Aid Regulations and the Asbestos Regulations
This will be the last update seminar this year so come along if you can!
To attend, BOOK NOW please download a form from http://www.bernardsimsassociates.com/page/events
The cost is £25 per company or organisation for up to 3 people and includes the buffet
Health and Safety (First Aid) Regulations 1981 (Guidance amendment)
The guidance for First Aid at work has been amended. This amendment comes into force from the 1st October 2009.
The amendment directly affects the training requirements for first aiders. The main impact is that the four-day first aid at work training courses will be reduced to three days. Qualified workplace first-aiders will still have to undergo a two-day requalification course every three years.
The new guidance also states that refresher training for all employees taken annually would be beneficial. The changes reflect the business case for reducing cost in the current economic climate, whilst still ensuring that adequate first aid arrangements are in place.
Our message is to ensure an adequate risk assessment is carried out on likely injuries that may occur through workplace accidents and ensure that the training and provisions match these risks.
For more information, please come along to our Mirfield Seminar on 10th November or call us on 01483 467270
Trying to be 'helpful' can backfire terribly....
A construction company appeared in court recently due to an accident involving the unloading of a delivery vehicle: The site compound was inadequate for unloading so the unloading took place in the public highway.
The load was not secured adequately and was being inappropriately supported by two employees standing on either side of the load whilst being raised on a fork lift. The load slipped and an employee became trapped beneath the load. The employee subsequently received severe crush injuries and as a result had a leg amputated and suffered serious crush injuries to his other leg.
The company appeared in court on 3 September 2009 and pleaded guilty to breaching s2(1) of the HSWA 1974, reg. 3(1) of the MHSWR 1999, and reg. 9(1) of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regualtions1998. The firm was fined a total of £14,000 and ordered to pay £6000 in costs.
Although the employees were trying to be helpful and get the job done, they were operating outside a safe system of work - something that tends to happen when unforseen circumstances arise. The employee and his family will have to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives.
The New 'Fit Note' System - Replacing 'Sick Note'
New regulations surrounding the implementation of the new "fit notes" system is expected to come into force in April 2010. The new system will be made up of three categories of ability to work: These are "fit for work:", "not fit for work" or "may be fit for some work now".
The third category will require Doctors to provide a description of the functional effects of an employee's medical condition. Doctor's will also have the option of advising on arrangements to facilitate an employee's return to work i.e. phased return, light duties or workplace adaption's.
However, it is made clear in the consultation that any alterations will be made at the discretion of the employer with the agreement of the employee.
It seems that employers' obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) will not be affected by the new system. Recommendations made by Doctors under the new system will not be binding; however, they may amount to 'reasonable adjustments' under the Act. Where employers do not agree with the suggestions put forward by Doctors, they must ensure they are still complying with the DDA requirements.
The implementation of the new 'fit notes' system will mean that employers may have to amend their current policies i.e. employment contracts, sick leave and pay and flexible working policies.
The Howarth Partnership offers advice for all human resources and employment law queries.
Visit their website under the employment law section of the BSA Useful Links or contact Tracey Hopkins of Howarth Partnership on 01274 864 999.
Asbestos Update
New guidance for the Asbestos Regulations is due out soon. Due to past confusion of the type of survey to be carried out, it is expected that the existing three types of survey will be replaced with the following two types:
1. Management Survey - to locate the presence and extent of Asbestos Containing Materials (ACMs), and prepare a management plan.
2. Refurbishment/Demolition Survey - a much more intrusive survey, designed to locate all ACMs so they can be removed before refurbishment or demolition takes.
It is also likely that the duty holder of the building will have to ensure the surveyor's competence, be involved at the survey planning stage of the surveys and check survey reports.
We will issue any information as we receive it and keep you up to date at our seminars.
Don't be tempted to ignore Asbestos risks
Two companies have been criticised for falling "woefully short" of the required safety standards by ordering renovation works to continue following the discovery of deadly brown asbestos fibres.
Southwark Crown Court heard that Noble Gift Packaging Ltd had contracted A&T Roofing Ltd to remove a roof at a warehouse in Brimsdown, Enfield. The work began on 29 November 2005 with the dismantling of the roof, which required the work team to smash a number of insulation boards.
Two weeks into the operation the workers became worried that the dust created from destroying the boards might contain asbestos. They informed A&T Roofing, but the company's management team refused to enter the site because of the safety concerns. Instead, it requested that staff retrieve a sample of the material so it could be sent off for testing.
The tests revealed that the insulation boards contained amosite, or brown asbestos fibres - one of the most deadly forms of the material. Nevertheless, management informed the workers that the substance did not pose any danger to their health, and they should finish the job.
The workers were subsequently provided with facemasks and overalls, which were unsuitable for working with asbestos. Work continued on the site for a further 10 weeks until the renovations were complete.
A few weeks after the job ended one of the workmen contacted the local authority to report the incident. Jurisdiction of the case was later handed over to the HSE, because the work had involved construction activities.
The HSE's investigation discovered that Noble Gift Packaging had carried out an evaluation survey when it purchased the warehouse in 2005. This survey revealed that there was a possibility that asbestos was present in the roof insulation. Despite this warning, the company failed to commission an asbestos survey on the premises, and didn't inform A&T Roofing that workers could be exposed to asbestos during the renovations.
HSE inspector Sarah Snelling said: "Noble Gift Packaging, as the client for the work, should have taken the basic step of having a full asbestos survey done after they were informed in a valuation survey that the roof contained asbestos. This could have prevented this whole tragic case."
Noble Gift Packaging appeared in court on 6 October and pleaded guilty to breaching s3(1) of the HSWA 1974. It was fined £40,000 and ordered to pay costs of £19,223.65. A&T Roofing appeared at the same hearing and pleaded guilty to breaching the following: reg. 3(1) of the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983, for the unlicensed removal of asbestos - fine £5000; and s2(1) and s3(1) of the HSWA 1974 - fine £10,000 for each offence. The firm was also ordered to pay £33,844 in costs.
In mitigation, Noble Gift Packaging said it had fully compiled with the investigation by commissioning an asbestos survey, and contracting a specialist to clean any remaining debris from the premises.
A&T Roofing mitigated that it had no previous convictions, and deeply regretted the incident. It said it had found the information about the harmlessness of amosite by performing an Internet search. It showed the website to the HSE, which subsequently had it shut down. A&T Roofing is currently in the process of arranging training for its staff to help them identify asbestos, and understand the risks of working with the hazardous substance.
Inspector Snelling added: "A&T Roofing Ltd's cavalier attitude towards the removal of the asbestos has put the future health of their employees, their employees' families and members of the public in general at serious risk. The exposure suffered by the men working on this project is the worst our specialist inspector has seen in over 15 years of dealing with asbestos cases."
However, the real damage is probably still to come in the form of possible ill health of the employees and the very real risk of losing a future civil case for damages. The companies may well suffer loss of trade due to the adverse publicity.
