Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Our H&S Policy is up for review by the board and the following statement is causing a sticking point with the directors:
"The company is responsible for contractors who work on any of its sites."
They are saying they cannot possibly be responsible for work undertaken in good faith as they are not the experts - the contractor is.
I understood that we were responsible, and that was the whole point of determining the competence of a contractor in the first place.
So, can the phrase remain unaltered as the first sentence of our policy on contractors, or does it need to be amended or otherwise qualified?
Also, have I misunderstood what controlling contractors is all about?
Jon
PS - The amusing thing is that this part of the policy has not been amended since last issue, so they have previously approved it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bill Elliott
Jonathan - HSE leaflet INDG 368 will help, called Contractors A Joint Responsibility it sets out who needs to do what. Regards
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sam Rawcliffe
I would guess that the sticking point is 'responsible for' which could quite easily be interpreted both for and against you in law.
I would suggest changing this for 'co-ordinate, control and monitor the activities of contractors to minimise the risks presented to employees, ..., etc.'
Regards
Sam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bev
Don't forget Section 3 HASAWA - employer's duties to those not employed, this includes contractors, so you could re-word the statement to say they the company is responsible for the health and safety of the contractors it employs.
Does your company have a selection procedure for contractors, to ensure they are competent for the work they are being employed to do?
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martyn Hendrie
The recent ruling in the house of lords regarding Associates Octel may be of interest. (Report can be found via a search engine such as Google)
HMS Glasgow case may also be relevant
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Dowler-Smith
Bev's right! Have a good read of Section 3(1) - it has wide reaching implications. Don't miss out Section 3(3) either. You have a responsibility to inform Contractors working for you of the risks that face them as a result of you carrying out your business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Craythorne
Jonathan,
I think the key word missing here is 'Management'. You should change the title of your policy to read 'Management of Contractors Policy' in this way you are clearly setting your company's intention on this matter within the title.
You cannot have control unless you manage it.
Regards,
Paul Craythorne
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Thanks for the positive feedback folks.
I had read and re-read Ss 3(1) & 3(3) of the Act, referred to them in comments to the board and mentioned the R v Associated Octel ruling (a fairly local case). I had also studied INDG 368 prior to my response
I was therefore taken aback by their insistence that they couldn't be held responsible for what a contractor did and was wondering if they knew something that I did not on the issue.
I think the problem is with the wording and am now looking at ways to convey the same truth in a more palatable manner, without diluting what is said.
Just to confirm, the section of the policy is called; Co-ordination & Control of Contractors. I take on board Paul's phrase 'Managing'.
Thanks again
Jon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Harwood
In the event of an incident involving a contractor on one of your sites, the HSE inspector will be much more interested in regulatory articles than the companies policy statement.
The policy can be dressed up any way the directors like but it will not absolve them of their duty of care.
I'd try to find some applicable case histories to strengthen your stance.
Good luck!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Fiona Cowan
Allan
I too would be extremely interested in any additional cases you might have. Trying to persuade our Technical services department that they cannot devolve all rsponsibility for health and safety to the contractor is not proving straight forward despite what is down in black and white.
Accident to member of public whilst contractor carrying out work with open hatch and no method statements etc in place - not our responsibility
Fiona
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.