January

Builder prosecuted for misssing safety measures

In a case where no one was injured the HSE has successfully prosecuted a builder after inspectors found that he had none of the safety measures in place required for working at height. David Clark, a self-employed builder, was found guilty at Chippenham Magistrates Courts of contravening the Working at Height regulations and was fined £2,000 with costs of £1,500.

Construction inspectors from the Bristol HSE office brought the case against Clark after inspecting construction activities in Foxham, Chippenham, where Clark and two men he had employed were erecting a farm building. Inspectors found that none of the safety measures required for working at height, such as netting and barriers, had been put in place.

HSE Principal Construction Inspector, Andrew Kingscott, explained the reasons for prosecuting in this non-injury case: "What we are aiming to do is be proactive and prevent injuries before they happen. The construction industry should be aware that where HSE Inspectors identify that standards on site fall well short of those required then, in addition to stopping the work, we could also bring prosecution proceedings. We are not prepared to wait for an injury to occur before taking action. This initiative of proactive, risk-led prosecutions means cases can be brought to court more quickly. I believe we will see more of this style of enforcement in the future.

"In this case, the risks identified were considerable. No steps had been taken, whatsoever, to prevent the three men who were constructing the roof from falling from it. Any fall from this height would have resulted in significant injury or even death. The work was stopped and steps were taken to ensure that it was not completed until suitable protection against the falls was installed. It was considered that risk of injury associated with the work, coupled with the shortfall in the level of control over the risk in this case, warranted prosecution."

Falls from height are one the most common cause of fatal injury and the second most common cause of major injury to employees. According to HSE figures 46 people die and nearly 3,800 suffer a serious injury as a result of a fall from height in the workplace.

The Work at Height Regulations 2005 require duty holders to ensure that all work at height is properly planned and organised and that those involved in work at height are competent. The risks from work at height must be assessed and appropriate work equipment selected and used. Also, the risks from fragile surfaces must be properly controlled and all equipment used for working at height must be properly inspected and maintained.

Weather conditions raise HR & safety issues

High winds and heavy downpours hitting parts of the UK recently have resulted in widespread rail and road closures. Employers would be wise to consider both HR and safety issues arising from these extreme weather conditions.

Absence
Employers should consider what happens if employees are unable or refuse to get into work in morning, the legal guidelines are as follows:

• The strictly legal position is that an employee who does not show up for work, and who does not have an acceptable excuse, is absent without leave.
• Allowing time off with pay will no doubt bring rewards in terms of employee attitude and loyalty. Withholding payment, even where that is expressly permitted, will have the opposite effect.

If an employee does not turn up for work, can they be required to take a holiday? It depends upon the express terms in the contract: if the contract does not provide for this, the answer is no. An employee who only enjoys the 20 days annual statutory leave under the Working Time Regulations cannot be required to take a day’s holiday.

Work-related driving
Where an employee is expected to drive as part of their work, an employer who insists on employees driving in bad conditions may be in breach of their health and safety obligations.

The HSE guidance document Driving at Work, Managing Work-Related Road Safety advises employers to give sufficient consideration to adverse weather conditions. Employers should reschedule journeys if possible, should make sure that vehicles are suitable for driving in bad conditions, and should make sure that drivers do not feel pressurised to complete journeys when conditions are very bad.

Employers who run company car schemes, and employers who let employees use privately owned cars for business; both have the same obligations and duty of care under health and safety legislation.

The HSE issued also guidance to employers earlier this week, aimed particularly at those working in construction and related sectors where high winds may present additional risks.

Vehicle breakdowns put drivers at risk

Company car drivers are putting lives at risk because many of them are unsure of their employers’ policies on breakdowns. Statistics have shown that many business drivers either do not know what to do in the event of a breakdown, or ignore safety advice given to them. New research by AA Business Services has shown that half of motorists breaking down on motorways would remain in the vehicle on the hard shoulder. In one case a businessman refused to leave his car as he was wearing an expensive suit that he did not want to get wet.

Roger Williams, Head of Major Fleets and Leasing at AA Business Services, said: “Ignoring hard-shoulder breakdown advice is without doubt the worst and most dangerous thing company car drivers can do. Staying in your car leaves you at risk of being involved in a collision with passing vehicles, but still a frightening number of drivers take this gamble.”

The study also revealed one driver tried to change a wheel in the inside lane of the M6 while others wandered alone on badly lit backstreets after an accident. Williams added: “Company car drivers are among the worst offenders, either because they haven’t been given advice about what to do, or because it isn’t their vehicle and they haven’t considered what to do if they break down.”

The AA’s advice includes pulling on to the hard shoulder as far left as possible, turning the wheels to the left to avoid the car being shunted onto the carriageway and leaving sidelights and hazard lights on. It also advises stopping near an emergency phone, leaving the vehicle by the left-hand door and wearing a reflective jacket, but not using reflective triangles due to the risk involved in walking along the hard shoulder.

Stranded motorists should keep away from the carriageway, up the bank or behind a barrier if possible, and must not attempt what appear to be simple repairs.

Critics criticise CRB over employment checks

Recent criminal records scandals have raised questions over how effective the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), the organisation which currently carries out criminal record pre-employment checks, really is.

Critics have warned that employers can not fully rely on CRB checks if police records are not up to date - after all CRB checks are only as good as the information the agency is able to access. However, the Home Office has insisted that employers should still have faith in CRB checks despite the recent blunder.

This is not the only criticism that has been levelled at the CRB since it was created. When an employer gets a CRB check back and no problem is found that employer is entitled to believe that the person they want to employ has no criminal record. The reverse is also true, when the check flags up an issue employers are within their rights to believe there is a problem and to not offer someone a job because of that.

However, one problem of CRB checks is the number of people who are in the police database but have committed no crime. This means some people may be being denied a job because their prospective employer falsely believes they have a criminal record.

According to the Government, CRB checks stop 25,000 unsuitable people from being employed in jobs working with vulnerable people; the danger of this is that employers may rely solely on this check and not carry out other pre-employment checks – such as getting references. Exaggerated CVs show the need for careful pre-employment checks obtaining references for potential employees is important, especially considering the fact that lying on a CV or in job interview is considered commonplace by 84% of people across the UK.

The Federation of Small Businesses has also claimed that criminal records checks are too slow and that some of its members are having to wait eight weeks or more for a report back. This can cause enormous problems for small firms with only a few members of staff because they have a long wait before they can take on someone who has been offered the job; in some cases businesses are unable to wait for the results of checks.

However, the laws surrounding the vetting of people working with children or vulnerable adults is set to change.

The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 received royal assent towards the end of last year. It sets out the framework for a new vetting system for people working or volunteering with vulnerable clients.

The Act means that employers will be able to make a ‘real-time’ instant check of whether a prospective employee is barred, with secure online access rather than the current paper-based process. This list would be updateable, with organisations informed of any changes to the status of their staff.

The Act will also mean that employers will be committing an offence if they:

• employ someone to work with children or vulnerable adults whom they know to be barred; or
• employ someone who has not been through the central vetting process.

Penalties for committing an offence will include up to five years in prison and up to £5,000 fines.

Drivers face penalties for using mobile phones whilst driving

From 27 February, motorists face tough new penalties for breaking the law by using a hand-held mobile phone while driving, Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander has announced. As well as having implications for individuals the changes will also affect businesses and fleet managers.

The Government introduced new laws in December 2003 preventing motorists from driving while using a hand-held mobile. However, according to Alexander, while 92% of people agree with the law, 21% of drivers admit to breaking it. In 2004, almost 74,000 fixed penalty notices were issued for illegal use of mobiles while driving, according to the official statistics. The new Road Safety Act 2006 will, from 27 February, introduce a fixed penalty of three points as well as a £60 fine for anyone driving while using a phone.

If the police or the driver chooses to take a case to court rather than use a fixed penalty notice, the maximum fine is £1,000 (£2,500 for drivers of vans, lorries, buses and coaches). Employers and fleet managers need to be aware of the change as more and more people are using their mobiles for work purposes, this means that businesses should ensure that they have the correct policies and procedures in place to convey what is and isn't appropriate usage.

The Health and Safety at Work Act places a legal duty on employers to provide their employees with a safe working environment and to take all reasonably practicable measures to ensure the safety of their staff and of others that they come into contact with while working. This applies to employees driving or riding on the road in the course of their employment.

Having evidence of a driving at work policy and a driver’s handbook can help businesses to prevent being prosecuted in the event of an accident. In one case the police had gathered evidence suggesting that the driver had been using a hand-held mobile phone at the time of the incident. As well as pursuing the driver, the authorities - in this case the HSE - decided to prosecute the company for an alleged breach of health and safety legislation.

However, the company successfully defended themselves by producing a company driver’s handbook containing a mobile phone safety policy, which included strict instructions on the use of mobile phones whilst driving at work, including privately owned phones.

The employer also showed that a detailed driver induction procedure was in place, which included a verbal explanation of the company's policies and procedures and also demonstrated that these policies were subject to regular reviews and updates.

A Review of Work at Height Practices in the UK Broadcasting Industry

“A Review of Work at Height Practices in the UK Broadcasting Industry” has recently been published by the HSE, the review work was carried out by NEL who were commissioned by the HSE. The title of the review is a little misleading as it covers work at height such as stage construction and perhaps should be entitled “A Review of Work at Height Practices in the UK Entertainment Industry”.

During the ten month long review, work practices were assessed against the Work at Height Regulations 2005 at a number of different events and (not surprising) shows a huge deficit in the level of compliance with the production industry, many of the examples in the review are nothing less than shocking.

The full review can be found by clicking here and is a “must read” for all those in work at height in our industry.

Madonna's diva demands overruled by health and safety

It takes a brave person to overrule Madonna's exacting backstage demands. And embarking on her Confessions World Tour, stadium bosses were only to happy to oblige when the singer imposed an air-conditioning ban to 'preserve' her vocal chords. But when it comes to officiousness, it would seem that Madonna has found an unlikely equal - the health and safety officer.

After fans started wilting in the heat at her concert on Tuesday night, council officers at Wembley Arena bravely overruled the 47-year-old singer and immediately ordered the air conditioning be turned back on. The decision was prompted after some fans started to faint, with temperatures hitting the high 90s Fahrenheit. And in an unprecedented move, Wembley chiefs have now put themselves on a collision course with the star by snubbing her air-conditioning demands for her next six shows.

Wembley Arena marketing manager Colin Roberts said: "A lot of people realise that 12,000 people in a confined space will generate a lot of heat, as well as the production itself and the lights. There's a health and safety issue with regards to the audience and that's why we will be reviewing the situation and her requirements."

The snub will infuriate Madonna, who is very prickly when to comes to the sensitive matter of her vocal chords. Her and her husband Guy Ritchie have even reportedly resorted to sleeping in separate bedrooms because the singer refuses to sleep in an air-conditioned room.

Despite concert-goers on her American tour dates describing the heat as 'suffocating', US organisers refused to overrule her demands. But Wembley bosses insist that they have a duty to uphold health and safety guidelines. Mr Roberts added: "For the future shows, I think it is more appropriate to have it on throughout. Asking for the air conditioning to be turned off is not something that we are regularly asked to do but the artists do have an element of control and we have to take directions from them. However this is now being reviewed."

A Brent Council spokeswoman said that they had a responsibility for "public safety standards" and carried out inspections both before and during the concert. "Our public safety manager found the venue to be too hot during the performance and asked the arena manager to put on the air conditioning which is used in the building, which he did," a spokeswoman said.

The singer has already come under fire for hiking up ticket prices for her UK dates, with the most expensive tickets costing £160 plus a £13 booking fee. As a result, Madonna's shows have STILL yet to fully sell-out, as fans revolt against the steep prices. For those wishing to see her in Horsens, in Denmark, there is a flat-rate of £63, while the most expensive ticket for her show at the Amsterdam Arena is £96. The cheapest ticket in America is as little as £30.

As well as the air conditioning ban, Madonna's backstage demands are also reported to include a brand new toilet seat at every gig, dozens of white roses for her dressing room and candles to protect her from 'negative glances and mean-spiritedness'.

After the London dates, Madonna is taking her tour to Europe, where she is playing in countries including France, Germany and Denmark. A spokeswoman for Madonna admitted that there was no air conditioning but said that there was an air filter system working throughout the concert.

HSE releases report into workplace transport hazards

As part of the Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) workplace transport priority programme, there is interest in establishing the areas in which knowledge of the hazards associated with workplace transport is lacking amongst industry, (festival sites) as these may then be targeted for future improvements. To assist in this undertaking, the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) was commissioned by HSE to gather baseline data on the current level of understanding regarding workplace transport hazards by British businesses, through consultations with their safety managers. A nationwide telephone questionnaire survey was conducted across a stratified sample of businesses from five major sectors of industry, seeking information on a range of issues known to be associated with workplace transport risk, as well as subsidiary questions on other inter-related workplace transport issues.

Read the report

Pub owner served with 24 improvement notices

The former owner of a public house has been fined £18,000 plus costs of £4,102 after being served with 24 improvement notices. Spirit Group Ltd, former owner of the Cherry Orchard public house in Wirral, was issued the notices in January 2005 relating to conditions in the pub.

Birkenhead Magistrates Court heard that during a visit on 21 January 2005 to investigate a complaint regarding the condition of the pub's Wacky Warehouse, damage was found to the play equipment and to the floor behind the bar and in the kitchen.

Magistrates were told that 24 improvement notices were served requiring Spirit Group Ltd to repair the damaged areas (22 for the play equipment, one for the bar floor and one for the kitchen floor) but before the repairs were completed a young girl had an accident in the Wacky Warehouse and cut her head.

Spirit Group Ltd admitted breaching S.2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 in that it failed to ensure the health and safety of its employees, due to the condition of the floor in the bar and kitchen. It also admitted breaching section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974 for failing to ensure the health and safety of non employees due to the condition of the Wacky Warehouse play equipment.

In its defence, the company said that it had co-operated with the investigation and had admitted the offences early on. It also told the court that it had paid compensation to the young girl.

RNID introduces new telephone hearing test

Employers and employees are being encouraged to ‘Break the Sound Barrier’ at work and take the Royal National Institute for Deaf People’s (RNID) new telephone hearing check.

The check is aimed at the four million people in the UK who could benefit from wearing a hearing aid, but who currently do nothing about it due to embarrassment or fear that employers will treat them less favourably. Employers are being urged to encourage staff to take the five-minute check in a quiet place at work.

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber comments “good bosses know that it makes sense to do all they can to help employees be as productive as possible at work and so most will I'm sure be keen for their staff to take RNID's hearing check."

John Low, Chief Executive of the RNID, says: “Both noise induced and age related hearing loss can take a real toll on people's confidence in the workplace. RNID's telephone hearing check is a simple and non-intrusive way of finding out whether digital hearing aids and practical changes to your work environment could help you stay in work.

The helpline can be contacted on 0845 6005555.

Under the Disability Discrimination Act employers have a duty to provide reasonable adjustments for employees who have a disability; this could also apply to employees who have difficulty with their hearing. In thse cases reasonable adjustments might include simple solutions such as amplified telephones and loop systems for hearing aid users.

The hearing of employees is protected by the Control of Noise at Work Regulations, which came into force 6 April 2006.

Research estimates that as many as 170,000 people in the UK suffer damage to their hearing as a result of exposure to excessive noise at work. This can be everything from loss of hearing to a permanent sensation of noises or ringing in the ears, known as tinnitus.

The Noise at Work Regulations put the emphasis on identifying measures to eliminate or reduce risks from exposure to noise at work rather than simply relying on hearing protection, although this may also be needed in the short term.

Hearing loss can be greatly reduced if machinery manufactured is quieter, if employers introduce policies and risk control measures to reduce exposure to noise, and if the employees utilise the risk control measures.

Employers can lower or eliminate employees' exposure to noise through the following ways:

• Replace old machinery with newer, quieter models.
• If you are thinking about buying new machinery, ensure that you find out about noise levels before you decide what to buy.
• Discuss with the supplier ways of ensuring that equipment makes as little noise as possible.
• Reduce noise from equipment by changing how it is mounted or installing silencers or enclosures.
• Have equipment regularly maintained.
• Keep noisy machinery in a separate work area.
• Ensure that employees do not spend longer than absolutely necessary in a noisy working environment or create a noise-reduced enclosure for employees.
• Reduce reverberations by changing the acoustics of the room or work area with material that absorbs sound.

Civil servants told how to tidy their desks

As part of a ‘tidy desk’ scheme black tape has been put on civil servants' desks to show them where to put their pens, computers and phones. The exercise at the National Insurance offices in North Tyneside is part of a drive to encourage staff to tidy their desks and make the most efficient use of desk space.

Office workers have been given black tape to mark out where they should put their pens, their computer keyboards and their phones. The exercise is part of the Lean programme, brought in by consultants Unipart, which has already seen public sector workers having to clear their desks of personal items.

The Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union claims the scheme is costing £7.4m nationally and branded it "demeaning" and "demoralising".

The union claims that it has had reports of a member of staff in one office being asked if a banana was "active or inactive", meaning it had to be cleared from a desk unless it was going to be eaten immediately.

However, HM Revenue and Customs has said that the measures are in line with its workstation training.

A spokesman said: "Part of the Lean processing is to clear the workplace and only keep essential items to hand. This is in line with the workstation ergonomics training that all our staff receive and complies with the Display Screen Equipment Regulations (2002). The markers on desks are used to demonstrate that it is much better to work in a tidy work environment where everything has its place.”

However, the PCS has pointed out that employees who hot desk will have to rearrange their workspace, regardless of the tape. For example, said PCS Branch Secretary Kevin McHugh, "if the person coming in after you has slightly shorter arms, then the markers will be in the wrong place”.

About 44 offices in the UK follow Lean working, and this is due to increase to 46. Trial sites were set up at Lothians, in November 2004, and Portsmouth and Cardiff in June 2005.

Under the Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992 (as amended in 2002) employers are required to:

• make a risk assessment of workstation use by DSE users, and reduce the risks identified;
• ensure users take 'adequate breaks';
• provide regular eyesight tests;
• provide health and safety information;
• provide adjustable furniture (desk, chair, etc); and
• demonstrate that they have adequate procedures designed to reduce risks associated with work, such as 'repetitive strain injury.

SIA targets CCTV surveillance

The Security Industry Authority (SIA) has released the latest results of its ongoing action targeting non-compliance of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (PSIA) at public space surveillance CCTV suites covering shopping and retail outlets.

In three separate operations during the autumn, SIA investigators visited 25 CCTV suites in England and Wales, which were run by operatives from 17 private security companies.

Following the operations three warnings were given for offences relating to Section 3 of the Public Security Industry Act (PSIA) for engaging in licensable conduct without a licence, 15 warnings were given for offences relating to Section 5 of the PSIA for providing unlicensed operatives, and nine Improvement Notices were issued to security companies.

Poppy Saunders, an SIA Head of Investigation, said: "I'm aware there have been some claims of confusion over the legal definition of those who require an SIA Public Space Surveillance CCTV licence. However, the definition is clear (see notes) and managers and directors should ensure they fully understand the legislation and seriously consider the consequences before deploying unlicensed CCTV operators."

The SIA started Public Space Surveillance CCTV licensing in June 2005.

A (PSS) CCTV licence is required if a security operative is involved with using CCTV equipment that is either deployed into fixed positions or has a pan, tilt and zoom capability, and they are required to do any of the following:

• Pro-actively monitor the activities of members of the public whether they are in public areas or on private property.
• Use cameras to focus on the activities of particular people either by controlling or directing cameras at an individual’s activities.
• Use cameras to look out for particular individuals.
• Use recorded CCTV images to identify individuals or to investigate their activities.

A (PSS) CCTV licence is not required where cameras are monitored:

• to solely identify intruders/trespassers onto a site and to monitor intruders/trespassers activities; and/or
• for the protection of vehicles or buildings against theft or damage to that property or premises and not specifically to monitor members of the public who may enter that property.

As Steward Kidd, Vice Chairman of the Security Institute, said, businesses that use CCTV should also ensure that they comply with Data Protection rules.

The Information Commissioner’s CCTV guidance notes make clear which CCTV activities are covered by the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). The guidance is particularly aimed at helping users of basic CCTV systems, such as small businesses.

If you have a basic CCTV system your use may not be covered by the DPA. This depends on what happens in practise.

For example, small retailers would not be covered who:

• only have a couple of cameras;
• can’t move them remotely;
• just record on video tape whatever the cameras pick up; or
• only give the recorded images to the police to investigate an incident in their shop.

However, employers need to make sure that they do not use the images for their own purposes, such as checking whether a member of staff is doing their job properly. Doing this would bring their use of CCTV under the DPA as the person would be the focus of attention.

SIA license application fee to rise

On 6 April 2007 the Security Industry Authority (SIA) licence application fee is expected to rise from £190 to £245. The new fee would apply to licence applications for all licensable sectors throughout England, Wales and Scotland.

The Home Office today published a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) that outlined an intention to raise the licence application fee, demonstrating that an increase is needed to enable the SIA to meet its need to be self-funding, and to continue achieving the objectives of licensing.

The RIA illustrates that an increase in the licence application fee is necessary because SIA income from licensing has been less than expected. The shortfall stems from unreliable and unavailable data gathered in 2002/03, before the start of licensing, and from changes taking place across various industry sectors.

To enable the SIA to be self-funding the new fee of £245 has been planned in consideration of the future licensable population (using more reliable data now available), the likely churn rate across the private security industry and SIA running costs. The intended increase is subject to Ministerial approval and legislative changes.

HSC has published Measuring Up... Performance Report 2006, summarising the activities, initiatives and campaigns implemented by the HSE and Local Authorities.

While it is acknowledged that Great Britain has the lowest fatal injury rate in Europe, and that an estimated 5,000 lives have been saved since the 1974 Health and Safety at Work etc Act, last year 212 workers died following workplace accidents, over 146,000 were seriously injured, and 2 million suffered an illness they believe caused or made worse by work.

Stampede at Indonesian pop concert kills ten

Ten people were killed and dozens injured in a stampede at a pop concert in the Managgala Krida sports stadium on the Indonesian island of Java on December 20th. The show was promoted by a local promoter working with 18 Production. The Indonesian guitar band Ungu had been playing to a stadium reportedly packed to double its 6,000 capacity. The stampede happened when people tried to exit the stadium in Pekalongan which has only two narrow exits, police said.

The casualties were said to be mostly teenagers. The band's manager said tickets for the concert had sold out but denied the stadium was too full. Local police sources said the stadium was over-filled as thousands of people had entered without tickets. The problem, they said, was compounded by a lack of exit gates and a crowd of another 2,000 fans waiting on the road outside. Police said the 10 fatalities suffocated or were trampled to death.

Hospital sources said 15 people had been admitted after the stampede. Three more are in intensive care and dozens of others were taken to local health clinics. The BBC's Lucy Williamson in Jakarta says it is not the first time people have been injured at concerts in Indonesia, and fans regularly complain that concerts are overcrowded with those who have gained entry without buying tickets.

Trio hurt in fireworks plant fire

Three people were taken to hospital after a blaze broke out at a fireworks factory in North Somerset on October 28th. 2006. One person was treated for smoke inhalation and two for shock following the fire at the Firemagic factory at Kenn Court Business Park in Clevedon.

A spokesman said some fireworks caught alight causing "an impromptu display", which lasted 40 minutes. Tony Jackson, from Avon Fire and Rescue, added: "It was pretty spectacular when we first got here."

Two containers of fireworks caught alight and exploded on Friday evening, with two near-by houses also affected by the blaze. Fire crews were damping down on Saturday morning.

One eye-witness, Nick Stokes, told the BBC: "We got there shortly after the police had first arrived. You could see the fire from the M5 as you come over the crest from Portishead. There was a massive fireworks 'display' for about 40 minutes of constant bangs. We counted eight to ten police cars, four fire engines, an ambulance and various unmarked emergency vehicles."

The blaze is not being treated as suspicious.

More stringent noise at work regulations, developed by the HSE after public consultation, came into force for general industry on 6 April 2006. The music industry was granted a two year period to develop sector specific guidance on compliance, but should meanwhile comply with existing noise regulations. Local Authorities also have issues concerning monitoring and compliance. Following a period of debate, it was agreed that Capita Symonds Ltd (CS) would complete a noise study to assess the current noise exposure of groups of people within the industry and would then report back on the impact of the proposed legislation on 'live' music concerts.