Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Ken Chappell
I have recently carried out a safety audit at my organisations factory.
One of my main concerns was that none of the factory employees were wearing eye protection whilst carry engineering duties.
These duties included drilling, using chemicals, metal work etc.
After the audit i had a word with the Factory manager and told him of my concerns,
his response was "Well if you look in the accident book we've had no injuries involving the eyes for a long time"
Has anyone got any ideas of what i could include in my report, which will make him change his opinion of eye protection for his employees in the factory.
Any help/info greatly appreciated.
Kind regards Ken Chappell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Malcolm Hogarth
Can't help you a great deal but I had a similar incident when I wanted to condem a 'steam Lance' I carried out a risk assessment and advised management of my concerns, to be told "We havn't had an accident in 21 years of using it!!" I went on to explain that that did not necessarily make it right. Eventally they found some money to buy a new steam cleaner and got rid of the original. I now have ongoing issues with trying to get the company to perchase hoists to prevent manual handling.
Perhaps your report could include mention of risk assessment that either has been carried out or should be carried out, with the control mmeasure of suitable eye protection.
I wish you luck in your endeavours.
Malcolm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Neilson
Ken,
I don't know whether you went to IOSH 2002 at Manchester, but one of the speakers was Ken Woodward.
HE lost his sight whilst working for Coca Cola. There were a number of contributing factors, but one thing he said was that if he had been wearing eye protection he would still have his sight.
The fact that there have been no accidents in XXX years is neither here nor there. If these chemicals will cause damage to the eyes, then PPE shoudl be considered as oen of the control measures in case of failre of the first lines of defence.
Ask him where he can get himself or his workers a spare pair of eyes, or how he will explain to an accident victims family that he didn't think eye protection was necessary.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Methinks there could be a 'safety culture' problem here!
Could this not be a flagrant disregard of H&S statute punishable in a court of law?
If you are a company which adheres to the 'positive safety culture' theory you fail!
If you are a company which adheres to the legal compliance theory as the goal you fail!
maybe this factory manager needs a visit?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Sorry ken forgot this manager is NOT unhelpful he is 'negligent in managing H&S Risks' just as well his safety performance is not aligned to his bonus!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richard Mathews
Ken
It seems to me that he has had an accident, the same accident that many managers with his attitude to health and safety have and it never gets reported in the accident book.
Why?
Because the accident is; that they have got so far without someone loosing an eye.
They used to build slag heaps behind primary schools in Welsh mining villages and there were no records of anyone being injured….
They used to get ferries under way before the bow doors were fully closed and no one was injured….
There are plenty of instances of people suffering serious eye injuries whilst performing drilling and other engineering operations and working with chemicals. Anyone who decides to ignore this and attempt to defend their decision with dubious accident statistics is a fool of monumental proportions and really has no place in industry management.
Ask the people doing the job if they have had any “near misses” (I know some people don’t like that phrase). I’ll guarantee that if questioned they will tell you that they often get bits of swarf hitting their faces and eye brows, that’s near enough for me.
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alec Wood
I agree with the above, the consequences of an accident when it does finally happen should provide sufficient motivation.
Inform him and/or his superiors that as soon as they were informed of the significant risk by their nominated "competent person" then they have a legal duty to assess and react to that risk. Failure to do so is negligence and could obviously lead to prosecution and claims. Nothing is likely to annoy the court more than a knowing blatant disregard of his duties, and an annoyed court hits back - at judgement time!
Above all else, try to do it without the aid of a soapbox. If you sound like you are preaching then you are less likely to be heard. Make the issues "what we have to do" not "what you have do is".
It shouldn't be too difficult to come up with a couple of prosecutions and liability claims for similar incidents and thus provide a good cost-benefit analysis for what you want to do. Sometimes the risk to the balance sheet is a much more effective threat than the risk to health!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Martin Taylor
Wasn't at this IOSH seminar but I can certainly vouch for the power of KEn Woodward as a persuasive character and teh OUTTAKES video Think What if - NOt if only based on the Coca Cola incident is a very powerful tool for helping change midset on these matters
Martin TAylor
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Murgatroyd
Forget all this "taking to court" stuff.
Never mind "if you do have an accident you may be prosecuted"
Don't bother with "what about your employees eyesight"
IF he cared about any of those, then eye protection WOULD be worn.
HE doesn't care, and neither it seems do the employees.
Just try pointing out to him, and other management, that WHEN someone gets injured due to their enlightened approach to enforcement of their regulations, they will end up paying, via their insurance, a ship-load of compensation. The insurance premium will go through the roof, and they may even be denied cover. Which means they cannot legally operate.
Maybe even put in the report that in this day and age, a manager who cares little about H&S is a liability that any company can do without.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Sandler
I have read the replys posted.
Just an idea, get the manager to do the risk assessment, get him to sign and date it, get him to include cost to company after accident and prosecution, get him to put his head on the block, get him on a managing safely course, get the directors trained, look at risk perception.
Just and idea....
Jonathan Sandler
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Nagle
I am sure that when something does need removing from an eye, and the insurance claim is made, the Solicitors letter will be asking for copies of assessments made in respect of risk, PPE etc...
Apart from the fact that risk assessment is a legal requirement, with the obvious conclusion that as your audit has identified risks not accounted for, they should be re-assessed, perhaps your audit should be stating that;
1) non compliances to review risk assessments in respect of identified hazards, and
2) Ideifty the business risk management aspects, delay, costs of actions, treatment prosecutions, lost time etc etc etc... as the driver behind reasonable compliance issues to ensure that the company are adequately managing health and safety risks...
I could go on, and on and on... but you get the drift... I hope
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ian Haylett
Ken, is the factory manager a director of the company? If not then I wouldn't bother trying to convince him as he has interest in the financial well being of the company, beyond getting paid, and would not bear the additional costs following an accident.
Instead talk to the directors.
As others have suggested I would draw up a list of potential incidents, what these would cost and subsequent actions (using the iceberg principle of hidden costs/time)including HSE visit, loss adjuster visit, insurance company visit who will want to review all H&S arrangements, increased insurance costs, lost production, bad publicity, affect on morale etc etc.
Then I would draw up a list of what you want -
1) Eye protection for all staff plus a few spares - cost X
2) Signage for the factory - cost X
3) Letter or declaration to all employees advising of risks and requirement to wear eye protection (which you would probably draw up) plus time for a short meeting to advise employees why you are doing this.
4) Enforcement - ensuring that employees wear eye protection (this would be your biggest problem as day to day enforcement would fall to the factory manager)
5) Periodic audit (which would fall to you as part of your normal audits - maybe regular random checks would be warranted in the early days).
This way you should be able to demonstrate to the management that for a small financial outlay (if we are talking standard eye protection) and a bit of work (mainly on your part) they will address the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.