Posted By Benedict Thierry Date: 15/4/03 Location: Busy trunk "A" road in densely populated urban area For risk assessment purposes it has been agreed that the lenght of the "A" road constitutes a single site given the type of work involved. Job being done: Amenity grass cutting (parkway) along the route Work equipment - Ransome 213 triple mower and John Deere front mounted flail Staff on site - 2 - one either side of road At 09.30 hrs one of the team arrives on site. Parks up the van and trailer in a safe, convenient, secure place avoiding causing an obstruction/ nuisance. In a folder in the van is the paper work for the site - risk assessment and method statement etc. He starts work and as he travels the distance between him and the van increases At 11.30 'ish the second team member arrives on site having collected a mower from the repair shop. He parks up in a spot that is not as safe but where he is not causing an obstruction/ nuisance. In this van there is no paper work relating to the ongoing works/site but the van is about 300m away from the grass cutters. The H&S manager for the client comes to do a site audit at 12.30'ish The H&S manager is annoyed that the risk assessments and method statement and daily site specific check list are not being carried by both the people in the team cutting the grass and that the van with the paperwork parked up about 2 miles back is unacceptable and feels this needs to be made into an issue. The contractors reply that they feel it would be awkward to have paperwork out on the mowers as there is a lack of adequate/ suitable storage space and it would likely get dirty/wet/ lost etc and the proposal is not very workable This is not accepted by the client H&S manager Legally nothing is being contravened

Posted By Merv Newman This is a perenial (how do you spell that) problem. Management responsability is to ensure that all workers are aware of the risks and of the safe working method agreed. And, as the americans say - period. How you do it is your decision, but you gotta do it. Merv

Posted By Benedict Thierry Thank you Stuart for your message. Re - lunch etc. No the drivers don't carry their lunches out with them on the mower as they find they get spoiled either by the heat generated from the engines or the dirt and dust caused by the work or by the weather. One of them smokes and doesn't carry his cigarettes with him for the same reasons. I find your other comments apt. Benedict

Posted By Benedict Thierry Yes Jason. This is how I felt. A little over reactive and what about talking about things. Yes, I'm not ruling out what the client H&S manager wants. I am interested in suggestions for negotiating a way forward. Thank you for yours. A problem with carrying things on these types of mower is that they often fall off, fall out,get shoggled about so they get blown away, get dirty, get mangled. Water proof wallets are often made from plastics and these can be damaged by the heat generated from the engine/ small fires from dry grass build- up on the mower

Posted By Simon Dean Sorry if this sounds like i'm being a tad thick. But where does it say in any Legislation that the risk assessment must be with the worker at all times, because if thats so then, for example, on a construction site anyone using a breaker, working at height etc. would need to have a copy of risk assessment on them at all times...cause that would happen! I belive that there is such a thing as 'over kill' in health & safety, and some people go to far. What would be the point of putting a risk assessment on a lawnmower! surely putting a warning sticker on it about wearing goggles, ear defender etc. would be sufficent in the eys of the law, and holding the documents in the van! Simon

Posted By Ian Stone Im with Stuart on this one, if I told all our staff that they had to carry a risk assessment on all their equipment, id be linched!! We carry out the assessment, and explain all issues with the workers, they ahve feedback and discussions to make sure they understand and follow it through. As long as its been carried out, they know where it is and they understand all of it then cant see a problem Ian

Posted By Benedict Thierry Ian, there very nearly was a lynching. Not only did the staff not appreciate the request, there was the issue of the tone it was delivered in and the attitude demonstrated towards them. There day was spoilt and they just felt like packing up, going home and jacking in the job. Benedict

Posted By Benedict Thierry Dear Dave - sadly, I fear you have squarely hit the nail on the head. I would take the "if" out and replace with "when" or perhaps include an "and" between the words. But as you say; "in your opinion". The H&S manager obviously thought otherwise This is why I posted this message to try and get a feel on how to reply to the manager (as I feel a response is necessary to be able to explore the potential within this situation for antagonising those affected by this professions actions resulting in ineffectiveness and derision)

Posted By Stuart Nagle Benedict. Thank you for responding to my comments on your problem. In reading the additional threads and youir responses I think you answered your own question here. You have stated: 1) there is little room to safety carry documents on the plant 2) there may be a fire risk due to engine heat etc 3) it is impractical for various reasons as the plant is not designed to carry paperwork in this manner 3) the legal requirements to undertake a risk assessment, identify hazards, quantify risk, put control measures in place and inform staff of the findings has been done. In addition the assessments are (technically) on site in the van 4) you have produced method statements that descibe the task and the manner in which the work must be safely performed. I think presentation of these facts in writing to the head of department, drawing attention to the request by the H&S officer inspecting the site would result in the matter being resolved. This is NOT going over the H&S officers head as (I presume) you are dealing with a Local Authority/Highways Agency, all letter should be addressed to the head of department i.e. the Proncipal Engineer, who would read the letter before passing it on to the relevant officer for action/response. Having spend 25 years in Local Government involved in highways work, I am sure that such a reasoned argument in this manner would get results for you here.

Posted By Benedict Thierry Stuart, Hope you had a good Easter. Thanks for your interest. I'm worried that I may be reacting unfairly. I'm not so sure that the safety manager maybe isn't maybe making an excellent point "in principal". Think about where warning signs etc. are posted.Directly where they are to be considered. Put yourself on a small yacht, will you have documents with you.Probably,---- maps, charts etc. to be referred to. In the past I have done orienteering and we always had maps with us for reference. I've worked in research on field trips--- we carried documents and reference materials with us. The team had a first aid kit with them, a fire extinguisher, a toolkit, and a mobile phone. Maybe a risk assessment should be there also. How do we actively raise perception and awareness of hazard and risks at work if the chain is incomplete.

Posted By Benedict Thierry Jim, thank you. My thought at the time exactly.The offer of a lift to the van. A bit of courtesy and consideration, wonderful. But I'm still left with the nagging thought in my mind that perhaps the H&S manager has a fair point in principle as to how to raise peoples on site, on job awareness of hazards and risks. I like your notion of a chat to check levels of awareness.But then you need to check against something and the RA could be a useful point of reference. And ,fine, I agree entirely with your considered next steps if anything untoward. Do you not find that systems of their nature lead to rigid, inflexible approaches so that through trying to do your best you fail to get the result hoped for.

Posted By David Edward Partington This is such a good but long thread it would be somewhat time consuming to quote the statements of others. Therefore I particularily agree with: Stuart Nagle Dave Wilson and I work and agree with the style of Jim Sweetman. In this posting I have not seen a statement saying that the grass cutters were working in an un-safe fashion... If they were working safely then the Safety Manager was in my view (on the face of it) being officious. If they were working in a safe fashion why would the Manger wish to see these documents? Unless of course the contract between the authority and the contractor wrote this into the contract. If this was the case then he (?) should have raised this with the management of the contractor, rather then browe beat the operatives. I believe that a better use of one's time is to work with one's contractors. Therefore today I was in the basement of a 16 storey tower block with a contractor. The scenario was that we are renewing the electric's however, the area is flooded up to three foot of water, there are rats, the area is a confined space, there is live electrical wires AND junkies have been using the area and therefore there is a large amount of used syringes.... How can this work be done safely, in a cost effective manner and with minimal disturbance to the 300~ people living in the block, this to me is the real question. This working with contractors is far more productive then simply asking for RA or method statements and also has the advantage that the interest of ones employer is also met and not just the contractor's. Simply "catching someone out" misses the point. Though I would obviously say that pre-contract one would wish to know that the contractor knows how to work safely and therefore pre-contract one would wish to see these documents and have discussions with the contractor on the practicalities of their methods statements RAs etc. This afternoon I met with a large RM contractor to discuss my briefing note on Horsehair in plaster in pre 1933 buildings. Left to their own devices they have apparently "done the right thing" by having the horsehair (major void) sent to Porton Down to see if they could grow the Anthrax spores. This cost my employer £2500. The tenant was kept out of his house for two weeks and at the end of this two weeks Porton Down could not grow the bacterium. My briefing note reviewed the data and came to the view that with minimal alterations to working practices that this therorectical hazard (70 year old Anthrax spores)could be safely managed. I wrote the note, consulted with the four RM contractors and we have come to an accord. I really think that this is the way to work with contractors - it's the adult way -which ensures that one's employers' needs are met. That contractors needs are met and most importently that the work is conducted in a safe manner.

Posted By Benedict Thierry Dear David Edward Partington, Thank you for your interest and comments. Interesting you pick up on the concern of whether the work was being done safely or otherwise. A few questions could have been asked but at the time were not,(recent changes in legistlation), as the issue of the risk assessment stopped everything at that point. This could be a quality/ contractual issue true but as you go on to say was it dealt with in an appropriate manner. At least there was no beating about the bush and the message was received loud and clear. The message seemed to take all by surprise. I agree with you on preferring to work with contractors, especially as many of them are small companies and trying to keep up with all aspects of changes and how they play out is no easy task and is why big companies employ people to do it on their behalf, but often it would seem so as they can catch others out. But the question is: "Is the principle a good one and is the practice sound"

Posted By Jim Sweetman Benedict, In response to your queries, I would take the viewpoint that the H&S manager in question was being OTT and not doing a great deal for the H&S image. You mention about checking against an RA to identify whether all is OK. I would tend to rely on my own knowledge and experience of working practices to assess whether I thought that the work was being carried out in unsafe manner. As part of my preparations before leaving my office I would have read up on the background documentation - a practice that has the potential for saving many a red face. Armed with that information and what I actually see on site would determine what documentation I would start chasing. I left Local Authority just after CDM came in. Had I spent more time with LA's on this sort of role, my starting point would have been the H&S Plan, rather than RA's. If there was no H&S Plan, due numbers/duration etc, I would be looking for compliance with procedures in their Safety Management System - again RA's are somewhat further down the line. Now I am in a position where I look at Safety Management Systems of various bidders on contracts of considerable size, I welcome the odd chance to go out on a site inspection role. However, if H&S Managers look at some the SMS's they may get quite a surprise - you would be surprised at the failings of major players at SMS level, without going down into the weeds of RA's! Keep up the good work. Jim

Posted By Benedict Thierry Dear Jeff, What welcome comments you make regarding the operator and their part in the RA process etc. I also passed many hours (happy?) on a 213 and though this machine is 4 years old there has been no improvement in provision of storage space or protection against weathers- hot, cold , wet or chilly and windy- and in terms of risk exposure over a working life of far greater risk than having or otherwise a risk assessment with you. I wouldn't necessarily underate the breadth of hazard evaluation that an experienced H&S manager can bring to situations. Awareness of things like Toxocara canis or cryptosporidium etc may often be viewed as of little concern until that moment. But, thanks again re your comments on space, dust and dirt

Posted By Benedict Thierry Dear Bruce, Forgive me, but I get the feeling you may be a little disillusioned perhaps. I agree with your premise that most people come to work for pay and spend most of the time thinking about finishing be it for the day, the week or the hols. Not many of us like to feel that somebody else is interfering with us in how we do the job. Unfortunately it has often been when assumptions have been made that disaster takes the opportunity to make itself felt. For me, you raise the very important factor that no matter how often you do the job there is always that one time that is different. How do you make the RA relevant to that situation. Perhaps if you have a RA on site with you and you record the variation to the work process from the outlined method you could encourage participation in what you seem to describe as a fragmented process with little relevance to people doing the work.

Posted By Benedict Thierry Well Adrian, Damning but perhaps profound. I also would be more interested in finding out answers about the areas you identify. Certainly, having them in your head is a more useful place except as you indicate they may be complex and so memory unreliable. Your suggestion of the laminated sheet etc I had considered but in the circumstance I wasn't convinced as to the suitability/practicality. I've looked at water proof document bags as used in sailing - perhaps a little costly at £14.00p each.(there is little profit in grass cutting). I was considering bum bags or document/money belts/neck purses Imagine a similar question in a different situation---- Your passport please. Your tickets please. Your driving licence please. and so on. So, the principle of carrying documents with you is already practiced in certain spheres of peoples lives today. Why then should it seem so awkward or whatever at work. As you say, people want to earn a living (without the hassle of paper documents)to be able to have a good time. But people will go along with paper work when it comes to spending the dosh for a good time. Why the difference?

Posted By Dave Wilson I think that we are missing the point here!!! We are talking about cutting grass not contractors and subbies on major construction or nuclear reprocessing and the level of Risk Assessment / Safety Case / method statements etc etc must be commensurate with the identified hazards and the subsequent risk. This H&S chappie / chappess / chappette was overbearing and officious in this particular circumstance and needs telling so. Give him both barrels benedict!!! then apologise as you need his custom as he is always right (the customer)

Posted By Benedict Thierry Dear David Edward Partington, Thank you for your continued interest in this. I'm very grateful to all of you who have contributed. The point you make of the "Duty of Care" is interesting and one that has passed through my mind. Equally, I'm with you on safe standards and building relationships. I may not have cleary stated my concern over the point "Is the Principle a good one" etc. My question here is about the preference expressed to carry risk assessments with you physically when working. I presume this may have something to do with the "Duty of Care" and meeting agreed standards (quality?). The question I find myself returning to is; "What is practicable and reasonable?" Is this beaurocracy in excess or following a sensible and logical step?

Posted By Ian Stone Following reading these replies I have had a meeting with some of our workers to find out how they would like things to be run. We have now come up with safety site meetings, where all the assessments are discussed, the gang forman supervises all the work. All the assessments are to be carried in the van, and can be produced at a moments notice. The teams are also discussing how the assessments work and improvemnets. The last thing anyone wants is for some bloke wearing a nicely ironed shirt and tie to come along and start shouting at them "wheres your risk assessments". All that is going to achieve is to upset the workers and reduce safety importance. All parties seem happy with this approach