london-borough-council-fined-for-safety-failings

[flatyre]

The employer shouldn't get fined because of the stupidity of their employees, you can't look over every employees shoulder every minute of the working day. so say your the employer, some fool takes a rip saw blade and sticks it into a cut off saw and then sticks the whole lot through his leg so he could get the job done quicker, and you miles away in your office get the blame? I did my abrasive wheel training and the training is perfectly clear, you don't use a saw if you don't have the relevant ticket, if you have the relevant ticket you must follow the manufacturers instructions. simple as. Problem isn't the boss, or even the tw*t that injured himself, its our claim culture. You can sue for anything these days.

[Gary Prentice]

Silly bugger would have been better off using the digger bucket?

 

Would have saved a fine:sneaky2:

[richy_B]

I agree with flat tyre - you can't watch over employees all the time. If someone decides of their own free will the change a blade over and then use a tool for something it is not design for then the blame should fall with the employee. Only if the employee was instructed to do it that would be when I'd blame the employer.

Edited August 1, 2016 by richy_B

[karl1991]

Hefty fine!

Do you need a ticket for a stihl saw? Thought it was just.to change the blade, maybe the competent blade guy wasn't around that day but as long as the blade isn't messed with....

 

Sent from my SM-A300FU using Arbtalk mobile app

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Wonder what the Tree Officer thought about the act of setting into tree roots with any saw?

 

 

Maybe it points towards a more pan-departmental systemic failure perhaps? As always, there's more we can't know than that which we might assume based on a snap-shot. Maybe it's a consequence of the absence of a safety / environmental awareness culture which has to be driven from the top down as much as the irresponsible actions of an individual.

 

Just guessing, but surely the LA's legal dept would have looked at apportioning blame on the individual (it that's where it properly sat) rather than copping for the blame & fine?

 

Hopefully, as a consequence, somebody in the tree team is talking to someone in the highways team to ask, WTF were you thinking!

 

😳

[Gary Prentice]

I passed a brand new cycle path last week, nicely tarmaced and kerbed beneath some nice semi-mature maples.

 

Yes the TO was aware of it, after the fact, when he turned up to view the pile of roots that the mini-digger had removed. "WTF were you thinking?" was, I'm told, pretty much his exact words.

[eggsarascal]

I passed a brand new cycle path last week, nicely tarmaced and kerbed beneath some nice semi-mature maples.

 

Yes the TO was aware of it, after the fact, when he turned up to view the pile of roots that the mini-digger had removed. "WTF were you thinking?" was, I'm told, pretty much his exact words.

 

Genuine question this time, not an off the cuff remark.

 

What is to be done in this situation?

 

I've got an Acer of some description in my front garden that is breaking through the Tarmac. At some stage next year I'm going to get the drive resurfacd which will mean digging up the old surface.

 

What should I do about the roots from the tree?

[Gary Prentice]

You may be a bit limited in your options.

 

The usual methodology is to remove the old Tarmac working off of it to avoid compaction then maybe root pruning, if the situation allows ( minimum number of sub 25mm roots if that won't affect either health or stability).

 

Cell web or similar would be the usual option, a 3D stone retaining system that can surfaced over, but as a retro fit the problem is usually the raised levels complicates everything else.

 

It's difficult/impossible to answer with limited info though. Can you post some pic's?

 

Going back to the cycle path. The reason for its installation wasn't a need, but to reach a target of X number of km to secure external funding, the architect hadn't considered its placement in the RPAs at all and there was no consultation with the Arb department about how to implement the project without damaging the trees.

 

Its frustrating for the tree people, the knowledge is there but the system fails time after time because of lack of Arb input.

 

We're in the middle of a rush job felling trees for an access path for a school. I pointed out to the project manager that no tree loss necessary, it would be cheaper to use cell web and keep the trees. But the headmistress sees them as a liability, the LA think schools are responsible tree managers and timber volume is low enough not to need a felling licence. End result is yet more tree loss. Frustrating

[Taupotreeman]

The employer has a duty of care to their employees, the employee should not have been in a position to hurt himself.

 

The authority got fined for failing in that duty

 

Pretty much sums it up. If the Council had no procedures in place that either prevented him from using the saw in an inappropriate way then thats Council's problem. If Council had all the procedures, training etc in place and up to date and the employee had read AND understood those procedures then the responsibility falls on him.

[richy_B]

Not to disagree but what system do you put in place to physically stop someone using a tool inappropriately? We all have chainsaws on site, if an employee decided to stop using it for cutting trees and use it to cut up plastic drainage pipe for example. How would you actually prevent this?

 

Most sensible employers have policies in place amd get staff with the appropriate tickets but there is always a significant risk of something like this happening - never under estimate stupidity!