Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By AJM
I was recently talking to a safety manager from a local firm who was talking about his conversation with a Manager.
After the safety manager had spoke about the importance of wearing of Safety footware on a site where it was deemed necessary, and that everyone has to abide by the same rules the manager said;
There would obviously be a cost associated with all this wearing of safety footwear.
What is the Stance on visitors wearing safety footwear - do they(we) need a disclaimer?
Can a disclaimer be used for general office staff who don't have a regular need to be in the factory or the yard but may visit occasionally
Now obviously the disclaimer isnt worth the paper it is written on, but what is the legal jargon to blow that silly managers statement out the water. I think its something to do with you can not sign away certain rights.
Hopefully someone can remember.
Al
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Packham
If the risk assessment indicates a risk requiring the wearing of appropriate PPE, then it is incumbent upon the organisation to ensure that this is worn by anyone who might be exposed to that risk.
Remember that COSHH, for example, covers not only the employees but anyone else who might be affected by what the organisation does. No organisation can abrogate their responsibility under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, so any disclaimer would not be worth the paper it is written on. In fact, that manager might find himself charged with an offence under section 37(1) of the Act, something which I bet he was not aware of.
Not only does the H & S legislation cover this, but what about a common law duty of care? How would that manager feel it he had to explain to the spouse, partner or parent of an injured/dead person that it was his decision to save money by skimping on PPE that was responsible for the incident?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
It's easy to get carried away with this footwear thing. In the past (at more than one organisation) we specified that visitors were allowed to wear sensible shoes so long as they stayed within certain areas ie site roads and ground floor low hazard areas (I am talking chemical plants and workshops). If, however they went into potentially chemically hazardous or operational engineering areas they required safety shoes.
If you look on it on a task basis for assessing risk, then it becomes obvious that some tasks (eg being a fitter) require boots but walking around may not, depending on the environment.
Bottom line, I think that flexibility in this sort of case is acceptable, so long as the hazards and degree of risks involved are understood. I often say this - we are paid to a manage safety not read from a rule book! I think that the problem lies in inflexible and sometimes not fully thought out rules. In not wanting to be seen to "break the rules" the safety person is seen as being inflexible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Bellis
This thread reminds me of a wifes -disclaimer/affadavid re ppe - the idea being that the man who was reluctant ot wear ppe takes the affadavid/discaimer home to sign by thier wife -posted below
Spouse’s Affidavit
I, ………, hereby authorise my spouse to work without wearing gloves, hard hat, goggles, safety shoes or any other safety equipment, and hereby promise that I will without complaint, perform the following duties in case he/she is blinded or crippled:
Lead him/her wherever he wants to go.
Help him/her dress and eat.
Describe the scenery to him/her on our holidays.
Read to him/her instead of watching television.
Describe the way the children’s eyes light up at Christmas and what their graduations and weddings are like.
Teach him/her to do housework so I can get a job to support our family.
Do all the work around the house and garage that he/she used to do.
Teach our little boy how to play football, build model aeroplanes, fish and go hill walking.
____________________________________
(Spouse)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By AJM
Thank you for the answers. It just goes to show why some managers get bad names with statements like that.
Al
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
I've seen the "spouse disclaimer" before and still think it is WICKED
I'll go with garyh with his rules on visitors restricted to "safe areas" and so on. Very sensible.
I do know some fairly large sites that provide safety shoes for ALL visitors. Shoes are sterilised between uses by a machine similar to that used for hire of ski-boots.
Another site GIVES a pair of new socks, with company logo, to visitors who are loaned safety shoes.
Yet another example is of sites who SELL safety shoes and other PPE to contractors who arrive without. It's in the contract. Sign the receipt or go home.
Me ? I wouldn't dare turn up at a site, even for a conference room meeting, without the basic PPE.
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.