Climbers disciplined for refusing tree

[tree-fancier123]

Ps the money they were on is irrelevant.

 

I have personally seen instances where inexperinced climbers have refused to climb trees for totally unfounded reasons(IMO) and am convinced this is down to the training they receive at college or elsewhere. Whilst my own personal climbing techniques are reasonably modern, my approach to tree work is more old school with a 'get it done' attitude. I'm sorry, but I believe that a lot of climbers wuss out of trees way too easily these days.

 

I don't think the money is irrelevant - £6.50 to £8.50 they were trainees, not good climbers, maybe the senior one had several years experience, but not all climbing. Obviously the two posts I quoted are both very good climbers, and neither would lug a saw 60ft up for £8.50. Although they are getting experience, so it's worth it for them being paid to learn, the fact they are on that money says to me, particularly the 8.50 one, he isn't a good climber yet - don't send a boy to do a man's job.

 

I do gardening mostly and a bit of unofficial climbing in the gardens here and there, just doing tickets now. In preparation I was saddened to learn that even the world recognized experts get it wrong sometimes, as in the death of one of the co-authors of the Art and Science of Practical Rigging, Dr Peter Donzelli. He died removing a lightening struck conifer that collapsed underneath him. Dr Peter Donzelli's Death | Tree Buzz

 

Also as it was one hundred WW1 last year - what about risk assessments when they had to use knuckledusters and trench clubs on night raids across no man's land into enemy trenches? The Martial Chronicles: In the Trenches - Bloody Elbow

 

Death or glory - the only enemy I've got is empty pockets

Edited January 22, 2015 by tree-fancier123
sp

[Bren.]

A few mentions of people climbing to show them it is safe.

Not really so though is it, you can climb a dangerous tree and get away with it, but it's not the same thing as a safe tree is it.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Hi folks. I have a query regarding disciplinary action being taken against some of my colleagues for refusing to climb what they deemed to be dangerous trees. The incident occurred last week the day after the big storm in which a man was killed on the roads by a tree being uprooted. Temperatures were just above freezing, with ice and snow on ground and at height but weather was clear and wind light. Trees which were to be climbed were leaning heavily. Employees present were all climbers, ranging in experience from only a few months to perhaps six years. The men genuinely believed the trees were hazardous to climb on the day and requested use of alternative access method- MEWP or crane, both of which are owned by the company though i am unsure wether there was access. Management refused to consider alternative and the attempt to resolve matter degenerated into a screaming match. One point to note is that the manager involved does hold tree survey course. Another noteworthy aspect of the situation is that the wage of the employees ranged from £6.50 to £8.50 per hour, fairly low for the industry I believe. It is company policy not to pay any sick pay if an employee is injured in the course of their work.The employees are now facing disciplinary hearing for refusing a reasonable request.

My question is how the employees right to refuse dangerous work tasks , under the Health and safety Act applies in the tree industry?

 

Whilst I cannot comment on the specifics here, as others have mentioned it's about the risk assessment process, a collective and collaborative approach, and individual capabilities thereafter if deemed suitable / safe / appropriate to climb. If not then alternative methods need to be deployed (the, "soon to be released", Industry Code of Practice for Tree Work at Height will assist those involved in the planning and organisation of such.)

 

Cheers all..

Paul

[Mountain man]

Ok I've re read the OP.

The fact a guy was killed during a big storm a day before. Irrelevant, except that it put the wind up the climbers, conditions were fine for climbing, light wind and clear, not freezing.

Trees leaning heavily, without seeing them can't speak with any real authority but if the root plate had not moved during the storm there's no reason to believe that they were especially dangerous, all trees next to a road lean into the light over the road, (phototropism?)

Honestly if I picture the situation in my mind (always dodgy but that's all everyone else is doing) I cannot see why they would not go up.

If I had set up traffic control, informed the authorities, and generally done a lot of organising to be confronted by a group of blokes shuffling their feet and saying it's too dangerous when, and I say this only on the information given, it wasn't, I'd be a bit peed off.

 

One point that doesn't sit right is,If the company had a mewp (according to the OP) surely it would be quicker to use it?

Edited January 22, 2015 by Mountain man

[Mark Bolam]

The cowards.

They should all be shot at dawn.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[Marc Lewis]

I'd agree with this up to a point. However from my own observations...over the years I have noticed an increase in the amount of trees that are deemed 'unclimbable'. i'm convinced this is due to the HSE governed society we are brought up in, and the insistance that mewps must be used wherever possible. I have personally seen instances where inexperinced climbers have refused to climb trees for totally unfounded reasons(IMO) and am convinced this is down to the training they receive at college or elsewhere. Whilst my own personal climbing techniques are reasonably modern, my approach to tree work is more old school with a 'get it done' attitude. I'm sorry, but I believe that a lot of climbers wuss out of trees way too easily these days.

 

Completely agree with you Steve. I have noticed also that alot of climbers now, will refuse to climb a tree because they deem it unsafe. Whereas 10 - 15 yrs ago you wouldn't have thought twice about it because mewps where generally not an option. Its funny how the unclimbable trees are the ones covered in ivy!!

[Gary Prentice]

The cowards.

They should all be shot at dawn.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

And then shot again!!

[brynseiri]

They did not refuse to carry out a reasonable request, they rightfully refused to put themselves in danger and also considered a perfectly viable alternative in using the Company owned MEWP to do the job safely. That would be the union case in an unfair dismissal tribunal. For such poor wages, and considering these people's climbing qualifications they should simply go work elsewhere, shouldn't be a problem finding work as climbers?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[Safety Steve]

First the facts; any employee is allowed to stop work if they have reasonable grounds to suspect they may be injured or cause injury or damage to others. Not only are they allowed to do this they are required by law to do this under HSWA and MHSWR. They themselves could be committing an offence if they did not say something. Had this developed into ‘’he said, she said’’ the employer would likely be facing wrapped knuckles for the failures already identified (dynamic risk assessment / review, consultation, ssw, work at height protocol and priority for avoiding etc) and (had any discipline been conducted) could have faced civil litigation for ‘bullying’.

 

Old timers say what you want - this is how it is. Welcome to 1974. It isn’t macho, and it isn’t cotton wool. It is what we call ‘reasonable’. In particular it is likely that a proper investigation would find numerous holes in the employers system of work resulting in hefty legal and consultancy costs and time consumed in bunging these holes up to try and avoid either litigation or prosecution. My vocation isn’t top work – my job is getting to the root of the problem and pruning dead wood.

[Dryad's saddle]

In all circumstances like this the site specific risk assessment and method statement should have highlighted any serious hazards and control measures put in place. If then an employee is still not satisfied to carry the work, especially more than one, then a re-evaluation of the risks should be undertaken.