Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 24 January 2006 22:48:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Barry Cooper
I am having a problem convincing the senior management team that we have a duty to provide welfare facilities to our contractors. They accept we have to provide toilet and washing facilities, but refuse to provide them with shower and eating facilities.
I wish to provide the facilities as a way of treating them properly to build a rapport with them and get a partner type relationship between us.
Can anyone point me towards specific legislation that requires us to provide such facilities to strengthen my argument.

Barry
Admin  
#2 Posted : 25 January 2006 11:10:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David.G.C
Anybody in control of a site has to ensure that there are reasonable welfare facilities available at readily accessible places.This is an important duty in the The Construction health safety and Welfare Regulations. This does not necessarily mean, for example, that the main contractor has to provide these facilities, but they should check that others (sub-contractors, employers themselves and responsible to ensure suitable facilities are available/provided for their own employees i.e showers etc in your case)who have duties are making this provision.

Generaly the issue on shared Welfare facilities can be discussed and agreements made during a contract kick off meeting.i.e if contractors are permitted to use Shared facilities then they are to treat then with respect as if they were their own.

i hope this helps.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 25 January 2006 13:07:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter
You haven't given enough detail about the nature of the contractor's work and their relationship with you & your main activities.There are instances where seperate facilities are both preferable and a mandatory requirement & responsibility of the contractor (e.g. construction works,asbestos remediation, etc.)
Even where facilities could be shared, this may not always be preferable, for reasons of food hygiene, cross contamination, unsuitable wash basins, etc.
Admin  
#4 Posted : 25 January 2006 20:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Barry Cooper
We are a manufacturing company, and the contractors work is engineering fabrication, maintenance and repair of production machinery.
We tend to use contractors as and when we require them, usually on a hourly basis
Admin  
#5 Posted : 25 January 2006 21:23:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Frank Hallett
Perhaps your senior management team should read MHSW, W[H,S&W] & C[H,S&W] Regs rather more thoroughly than they have at this time Barry.

The extremely artificial distinction that you have stated is being applied is quite simply not supportable unless there is a clear contractual agreement that the Contractors provide the facilities themselves or that the facilities are clearly not required.

Now tell us what's the real issues behind it please.

Frank Hallett
Admin  
#6 Posted : 25 January 2006 21:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Barry Cooper
Over the years we have suffered vandalism of our toilet facilities (either by employees or contractors). We have just constructed new welfare facilities for employees at a cost of £100k, and when the plant is shut and all employees are on holiday, the Management team decided to lock the new facilities up (against my advice).
During the last shut someone tried to break down the facility's door, and it was assumed it was a contractor, so the MD has decided that it stays shut. Me being me questioned this decision, which didn't go down too well, which has resulted in the question of what do we legally need to provide. There is nothing agreed contractually in writing regarding facilities, unless the work comes under CDM.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 25 January 2006 23:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jonathan Sandler CMIOSH
you might wish to direct the managers to both hsg 224 and chsw reg 96, both layout the legal requirements for setting up of welfare on a construction site.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 25 January 2006 23:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jonathan Sandler CMIOSH
failure to provide welfare facilities can and has resulted in proscecutions to the PC failure to maimtain has also resulted in court, you can insure for loss and damage but you can not insure for fines, your choice.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (3)
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.