Posted By Martin Provan I am currently in a serious debate about the inappropriate use of joiner saw benches as working platforms. We have all experienced this on our sites where sawbenches are placed in line and scaffold boards placed on them to create a walking platform. This is used mainly by the joiners fitting gyproc sheeting to walls and ceilings. I am aware of the pieces of work equipment available on the market which would enable this type of work to be carried out safely. However contracts have already been signed between ourselves and the subcontractors and their safe system of work was not picked up at tender or contract let stage. I am concerned that we will have an accident on our sites using these benches but who is responsible for the cost of implementing the correct pieces of equipment when contracts have already been settled. I have recently started with this company and this is just one of the issues i have to deal with. Any suggestions please?

Posted By Merv Newman Do your risk assessment and have a good look at PUWER. If, after that you still have doubts, then maybe you can persuade/negotiate with the contractor to hire better equipment. You may have to share/bear the costs. Ask them if they have ever looked at stilts (see previous thread) I have just obtained a photo of a painter standing on three stacked-up paint containers. Gives him a height advantage of about three feet. Anyone who wants a copy should e-mail me direct. Merv

Posted By Frank Hallett It isn't just the saw benches as such, is it? The saw benches aren't designed to take the proposed loadings of at least one person plus whatever is used to create the working platform. The ad-hoc working platform is probably not effeciently secured to form a solid, continuous working platform and the span of the boards could easily exceed the design span for the length. What is done about fall prevention at the sides and the ends? Frank Hallett

Posted By Ian Whittaker I am comparativly new to safety management and learning fast, is there not a minimum width for a working platform laid down in legislation. If this is the case and I am told it is the contract has not relivance surely the contractor must just comply with legislation? Ian Whittaker

Posted By Martin Provan I would like to thank all who responded to my dilema. It's comforting to know that i am not the only one. GeoffB - my case is centred around the same points raised by Fank Hallett in that the trestles are not designed to take the proposed loadings. Furthermore the trestles are constructed using 2"x1" or 2"x2" timber for the top board and in most cases are covered in notches and cuts. This in itself renders the top of the trestle unsafe. I thank you for your comments. Merv - This was the angle of approach i was thinking about, thank you. Frank - Thank you, these are my concerns also and it will only be time before the boards move or the trestles collapse with the weight. Sylvia - Thank you. It sounds like you are describing "Iron Men" trestles, which would decrease the risk as they are tested with an SWL and have lips on the frames to hold the boards in place. Yes, it was a pink pig!!!! Ian - welcome to the club. Sylvia is right, we are trying to teach the management and others about the new work at height rules and it can prove difficult at times to get them to buy into it and as TBC states most contractors do argue that nothing needs to done until they are at 2m or above. I would agree with you and confirming Merv's comments we may need to split the cost or even bear it ourselves and put it down to a learning point, until new contracts are let with the methods suitably priced for.