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

[Taupotreeman]

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!

 

 

It relies mainly on procedures, correct use in line with manufacturers specs, correct training and that the employee is actually signed off. Then there's follow up training etc. as an example; guy in NZ put his foot into a chipper and lost his lower leg. First reaction is what an idiot, it's his fault everyone knows you don't do that. In the long run the company he worked for got fined because they cut the feed tray off to make digger feeding easier. If the feed tray is on you can't stick your leg in unless you climb onto the feed tray. If you climb on to the feed tray then you're at fault. If that makes sense.

We're going through all this with my local

Government employee AND my own company and its a very large can of worms.

One of the things I hear regularly is; it's common sense. How do you measure common sense from one person to another?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[treequip]

Not to disagree but what system do you put in place to physically stop someone using a tool inappropriately?

 

Lets not get confused here, we need to keep in mind that this prosecution is about what the employer didn't do, rather than what the employee did do.

 

You cant have system that physically prevents injury, that would be called a guard. In this case a system would consist of training, procedures and supervision. If the employer had been able to demonstrate that the employee had received appropriate training and updates as needed and was properly supervised (documentation is important) the prosecution of the employer probably wouldn't have got any further than the HSE investigation.

 

In simple terms this fine has been levied because the courts decided there were failings on the part or the employer. In a nutshell, no one sat the Darwinistic down and said, "don't do this, its dangerous and you might get hurt or die"

 

That level of duty can be cumbersome and reduce productivity, but given the ever more inventive ways people find of "doing a Darwin"..........

Edited August 2, 2016 by treequip
Taupo types faster than me

[Taupotreeman]

Lets not get confused here, we need to keep in mind that this prosecution is about what the employer didn't do, rather than what the employee did do.

 

 

 

You cant have system that physically prevents injury, that would be called a guard. In this case a system would consist of training, procedures and supervision. If the employer had been able to demonstrate that the employee had received appropriate training and updates as needed and was properly supervised (documentation is important) the prosecution of the employer probably wouldn't have got any further than the HSE investigation.

 

 

 

In simple terms this fine has been levied because the courts decided there were failings on the part or the employer. In a nutshell, no one sat the Darwinistic down and said, "don't do this, its dangerous and you might get hurt or die"

 

 

 

That level of duty can be cumbersome and reduce productivity, but given the ever more inventive ways people find of "doing a Darwin"..........

 

 

Now see, why couldn't I explain it that eloquently.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[treequip]

Now see, why couldn't I explain it that eloquently.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

Mine took a lot longer to type:laugh1: