Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By David Whitfield
We have recently been advised (by our insurers)to prevent office staff from wearing personal tape and CD player headphones whilst at work as the levels of noise they could be exposed to is uncontrolled and could possibly lead to future claims for NIHL.
Following this a number of employees have asked if they could sign a waver form and continue to use their players. Can anyone shed any light on whether this is permissable and whether it would indeed remove the employers legal duty to safeguard the employee whilst at work?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Maddock
David, I posted a similar question on this forum some time ago (I'm sure a search of my name will bring up the thread).
I work in an office based environment where the noise is no more than colleagues conversations and telephone calls. This may interfere with my concentration at times and I will often use my personal stereo (at reasonable volume) so that distractions are masked out.
I am not the only one in the office that does this, but as an acoustician I am well aware of the damage that can be caused by personal stereos (the 'in-ear' type headphone in particular), but a number of questions need to be asked.
Clearly the use of personal steroes by employees does not constitute part of their work, but nevertheless the employer has a duty of care.
Whether this goes as far as to the use of personal stereos I am unsure, but the employer could state that they cannot be used at all in the workplace, but this may be seen as draconian by staff leading to other problems.
I would suggest that if your working environment is 'noisy' such as manufacturing or industry, then I would prohibit their use as any damage caused by personal stereos could be attributed to NIHLS from the workplace.
In an office I believe that education and awareness is the best answer. Explain the equal energy principle - i.e. an LEP,d of 90dBA exposure at 8 hours equates to 96dBA exposure at 2 hours.
However I am not aware of any case law in these situations, suffice to say that claims for NIHL will increase dramatically in the future!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Judas Smith
I would have thought that the employer is responsible for noise created by its undertaking. As in this instance the employee is in full control of this device, a device which is readily available and in common use, is providing it themselves, using it for individual gratification and this has no secondary impact on other employees, in essence is on a frolic of their own, it seems to be stretching it a bit far to claim that any liability lies with the employer either in criminal or civil law. At best the issue of a simple guidance note to employees would seem sufficient.
The idea that we will be awash with deaf persons from the use of these things seems also unlikely, listening to loud music through headsets has been going on since the sixties. Where are all these deaf people ?
Criminal and civil claims for NIHL against the employer follow a set pattern, which probably explains why there is no case law on this, though there has been some concern about radio headsets (employer provided) at least in the US.
Surely common sense and proportionality should prevail? What next only decaff in the canteen?
Regards Judas
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nigel Singleton BSc
I doubt whether any person working in an office environment would even have the faintest idea how to prove that the noise levels they have been subjected to by wearing personal CD players had damaged their hearing.
The noise at work ACOP states that when noise is very close to the ear, it requires a specialist to measure it, using very specialist equipment, i.e. miniature microphones and complicated 1/3rd octave calculations
Proving the noise damage came from the CD would involve the employee having tests done at work.
I would suggest that you ask your insurers why they are insisting, have they had a claim brought against them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Maddock
Persons at work may not have the "faintest idea" how to prove that they have NIHL, but there are plenty of no win, no fee lawyers who will certainly try on their behalf!
There may or may not be a case regarding liability, but there are clear signs that hearing damage in young people are increasing, withe use of personal stereos and attending loud music events and night-clubs thought to be a major contributing factor.
If you consider that some night-clubs sound systems have been measured at 120dBA, using the equal energy principle, any exposure greater than 29 seconds is the equivalent of a breach of the 2nd action levels of NAWR '89.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martyn Hendrie
Not related to hearing loss, but you may wish to consider whether empoyees would hear an alarm (e.g.fire alarm) if they are using personal stereo's etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
I would have thought that the onus would be on the employee to take reasonable precautions against any harmfull effect due to excessive noise.
I am not aware of any precedents but 'common sense' would dictate that even if there was a case, any ETA or whatever would not seriously award damages when the problem was caused by the employee. Even if they were at work.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.