Posted By clegg I am in the middle of an investigation with an authority where an apprentice has lost the tip of a little finger due to an accident on a surface planer. The employer is wanting to discipline her for a lapse in concentration as they believe she has been adequately trained in the use of the machine. My concern is that an independent expert has said that planer should be fitted with a "Shaw or Tunnel" guard, which this machine is not. I believe that this will hjave a significant bearing of an appeal hearing against the apprentices discipline yet the managers of the building division will only accept that the employee is at fault. I would welcome any help from experts in this field who can clarify that according tp PUWER regulation 11 guards should be fitted to all exposed moving parts where practicable. Also any places where "Shaw and Tunnel guards" are fitted to machines at their workplace would be helpful. Where i am not fully against employees being disciplined for blatent breaches of health and safety, in this case I feel that the employer is wrong and is going to expose more operatives to the dangers posed by this machine. Many Thanks

Posted By Robert K Lewis This is a complex issue and unfortunately the loss of the Woodworking Machines Regs complicates the issue. The whole guarding issue was put into some disarray as PUWER could not lower the standard of PRACTICABLE found in the Factories Act 1961. The regulations here required all moving parts likely to cause danger to be securely fenced. The problem is that there were subsequent regulations enacted which gave exemptions such that dangerous parts could be exposed to the extent needed to perform the operation, these typically were the Abrasive Wheels regs and WW Machines regs. The loss of these regs and the PUWER statements of reg 11 place us back, I believe in the realm of an absolute duty. In which case the duty was breached because the apprentice could touch a rotating blade. Regs 11(1) and 11(2) are clear that they must be effective in performing their function. 11(2)a is explicit in its use of the word practicable but I do not know of any decided cases on this - I will llet you know if I can trace any. Be wary of 11(3)h this to me is specifically aimed at the maintenance operation only and insinuates the Work at Dangerous Machinery component of the FA. There needs to be a lot more information about the age, competency, experience, training provision etc of the apprentice before any judgement could be made. The surrounding circumstances may also play a part, even with horseplay and subsequent disciplinary I doubt that this would totally eliminate the employers responsibility in failing to effectively guard, it would potentially introduce an element of contributry negligence however. Email me if you wish to talk privately or want more detail Bob

Posted By Geoff Burt I don't think you'll get better advice than Jonathan's reference. It tells you all you need to know about guarding a planer. If the methods shown in WWS17 were not being used it should be seen as an employer responsibility.

Posted By jason telford Managers must make suitable arrangements to assess risks to young persons, which will include taking into account their inexperience, lack of awareness of existing or potential risks, and immaturity? At the end of the day we can do all we want to try and prevent an accident but with many a company not willing to fight the case and simply settle outside of court it's no wonder they want to go down the disciplinary route If this person is disciplined what sort of example will it set for health and safety the best option is to identify the cause and offer more training and support

Posted By Paul Adams An apprentice is by definition under training and therefore not competent. Should have been adequately supervised?

Posted By Heather Aston Bob I agree with your view on the Reg 11 interpretation - practicable in this case should mean if you can guard the dangerous part (and still use the machine) then you should do so, no matter how costly or technically difficult this may be. This is particularly relevant where a machine is in common general use and the HSE has produced specific guidance as seems to be the case here. It beomces more difficult when you have bespoke machines designed around the manufacture of a specific part as we do, to determine exactly what is and what is not practicable. Risk assessment is the key here, but the onus is on us as the user to prove that we have done all that we practicably can do, not on HSE to show that we have not. If this becomes a claim I would definitely aim for early settlement rather than going to court - it seems likely that breach of statutory duty under PUWER could form the basis of any claim. Heather

Posted By Heather Aston Bob I can't agree that the PUWER duty is the same as that in the FA. FA 1961 had an absolute duty to fence dangerous parts - this implied physical guards. Ultimately further legislation had to be made for power presses, abrasive wheels, woodworking machines and so on to allow them to be used at all. PUWER has an absolute duty to prevent access to the danger zone or to stop dangerous movement before access is possible – this does not necessarily imply physical guards. PUWER also requires an assessment to be made of the risk, which gives more scope than FA 1961 to choose the method of safeguarding. In the ACoP to PUWER, when talking about selection of safeguarding methods from the hierarchy in Reg 11 it says “In selecting the appropriate combination you will need to take account of the requirements of the work, your evaluation of the risks, and the technical features of possible safeguarding solutions.” To me this indicates that “practicable” in this context does have regard to whether it is possible to use the machine. HSE’s own guidance on applying PUWER to woodworking machines and abrasive wheels clearly follows this line and I cannot think they would give guidance that did not follow the intent of the legislation. However, I will admit that this discussion has made me go and look up the legislation and consider it again – bit heavy for a Friday but I’m sure it’s good for me! Heather

Posted By Geoff Burt Clegg - we are going away from the original question but out of interest were you aware of the woodworking series of leaflet, and did it help?

Posted By Geoff Burt Hi Bob, accepted. What I was trying to say, I guess, was that the WW leaflet gave all the information needed. But also, I was trying to elicit a response from the original poster!