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 : 11 August 2006 20:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By TERRY D W I WORK FOR A BAKERY IN THE WEST MIDLANDS. I HAVE WORKED THERE FOR TWENTY THREE YEARS. I AM ALSO CHAIRMAN OF THE BAKERY BRANCH OF THE TGWU. OUR SITE BOSS HAS DECIDED UNILATERALLY ( AS WE ARE PART OF A BIG COMPANY ) TO REQUIRE US UNDER H/S TO START WEARING HARD HATS ANYWERE ON SITE. THERE HAVE BEEN NO SERIOUS HEAD INJURIES, IN FACT THERE HAVE BEEN ONLY THREE MINOR HEAD INJURIES OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, ( THIS FIGURE WAS GIVEN TO US BY ANOTHER SENIOR MANAGER WHO IS OPPOSED TO THIS MEASURE ). THERE HAS BEEN NO CONSULTATION, HE HAS NOT ATTEMPTED TO LIMIT THE RISK OF INJURY, BY EDUCATION OF THE WORKFORCE, OR BY POSTING APPROPRIATE SIGNS OR ATTEMPTING TO IDENTIFY AND ELIMINATE POSSIBLE HAZZARDS, OR BY REMOVING ANY SUCH PERCEIVED HAZZARDS. WE HAVE THEREFORE REGISTERED A FORMAL GREIVANCE. ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS MATTER WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED. APPOLOGIES FOR THE LENGTH OF THIS MESSAGE.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 11 August 2006 20:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jason911 Terry, Exactly what are you guys at risk of a head injury from? Was the decision based on a risk assessment? Jay
Admin  
#3 Posted : 11 August 2006 20:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David Bramall Terry I can sympathise with you - it does appear to be OTT. When you say you work in a bakery, I tend to assume that you are a Baker, but this is not necassarily the case. If your manager has identified a real hazard with a particular operation, where hard hatd would eliminate / reduce the risk then good on him for protecting his workforce. The main concern is by insisting on hard hats throughout the site, the hazards in some operations are much less than others, and quite possibly nil. The Baker probably needs a big tall white hat, like a chef, so where does he wear his hard hat. Regards David
Admin  
#4 Posted : 12 August 2006 11:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Merv Newman Surely you must have (or at least contact with) a safety rep who could lay out a case for conducting risk assessments of work activities which MIGHT require head protection ? Carry on with your grievance procedure you should be able to win this one. Even if, at the end of the day, 10, 20, or 30% of employees may end up having to wear hard hats. Without the RA who knows ? Um, this unilateral, universal rule. Does that include the boss and other members of senior management ? Or do they just wear those funny white trilbys and beard snoods ? Merv
Admin  
#5 Posted : 12 August 2006 11:42:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Leadbetter Terry What happened to the consultation stage of this decision? Paul
Admin  
#6 Posted : 12 August 2006 11:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Kate Graham This happened somewhere I worked, it had nothing to do with health and safety and all to do with an authoritarian manager. There was nothing anyone could do about it - except that at least one person ended up leaving the firm as a result of the same manager being so authoritarian about everything!
Admin  
#7 Posted : 13 August 2006 00:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By TERRY D W MY PREVIOUS MSG DID NOT SAY THAT MY JOB IN THE BAKERY IS A DELIVERY DRIVER. WE DO NOT GO INTO ANY, WHAT COULD BE DESCRIBED AS HAZARDOUS, AREA,S. YOUR THOUGHTS AGAIN PLEASE
Admin  
#8 Posted : 13 August 2006 00:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By TERRY D W My previous message did not point out that i am a delivery driver. and therefore do not go into any relavent production areas.
Admin  
#9 Posted : 13 August 2006 21:15:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jason911 This does seem strange. Ask yourself if there is any chance of an employee suffering a head injury anywhere onsite, even in areas not normally travelled i.e to use the breakroom or rest facilities, which you may not normally use onsite if you are a delivery driver. Ask you company to provide justification for the decision in the form of a risk assessment if possible, which is required to be in writing for an employer with more than five employees and should be prepared after consultation with employees actually doing the tasks it is aimed at. Ask your employer about any previous injuries to employees as a result of not wearing head protection. I find it hard to believe that they would introduce this policy just for the sake of it, but then stranger things have happened at sea, or up north. That was a joke by the way, so please don't email a response on the strengh of it. Jay
Admin  
#10 Posted : 14 August 2006 08:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By CRN Baker I work in the distribution side of the bakery business and I can advise that there have been several head injuries to both Class 1 and Class 2 drivers. Injuries to Class 1 drivers tend to be when they have forgotten to remove numberplates at the site entrance, had to remove them later on and have caught their heads on trailers after removing the number plates. The Class 2 drivers tend to be due to storing load locking bars on top of product (even though they are trained not to!), forgetting they are there and then removing product causing the bars to fall. Ask to see the risk assessments and see if these risks are identified, this may explain the proposed implementation of the headwear.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 14 August 2006 10:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By TERRY D W We do not use restraining bars to secure our laods. we use restraining belts. Thanks for your responces up to now, but more please. It is all helping us to build a case against this decision.
Admin  
#12 Posted : 14 August 2006 11:02:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Descarte There was me thinking PPE was a last line of defence against hazards not the first due to the problems associated with it. You do mention that there were 3 incidents which involved minor(?) head injuries? Is this a result of an accident investigation that head protection is required? Surely other results from these investigations must have been to remove the hazards, mitigate them, restrict access, modify, educate, sign, change working practices, use good ergonomics in work place design, and finaly after all that has still not mitigated or reduce the hazard enough rap up your staff in all manner of PPE.
Admin  
#13 Posted : 14 August 2006 12:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Adam Hammerton It's been a long time (16 years) since I used to work with my dad as a (unofficial) YP out of a major manufacturers West Brom depot but unless the job has changed significantly I am struggling to see the need for hard hats. Yes, there were the occaisional bumped heads (usually when climbing in and out of the wagon) but nothing more serious than you would expect to encounter in normal life (never drew blood or had to do more than curse for being clumsy). The only falling objects I encountered were normally a result of poor maintenance to the wheels of dollies causing them to jam and resulting in the stack you were pulling toppling over. If you were unlucky enough to trip and be beneath the falling load then there would be a chance of injury but it would be whole body and the hard hat would be next to useless as a method of protection. I could possibly understand if you were using restraining bars as I have seen them placed in some precarious positions but if your on straps then it sounds like ill thought through generic overkill unless a specific reason has been identified during risk assessment or accident investigation, etc. If that's the case though the reason should have been discussed with you / your representative at the consultation stage. Adam
Admin  
#14 Posted : 14 August 2006 12:30:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John Webster For hard hats to be justified there has to be an injury risk from falling objects which cannot be controlled by preventing the objects from falling in the first place. If the risk of injury is from people bumping their heads of things, then bump caps are much more appropriate than hard hats.
Admin  
#15 Posted : 14 August 2006 19:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By TERRY D W There was'nt any investigation done into any of the minor head injury accidents, i am certain of this because the last accident happened to me. I was not interviewed at all about the incident, and no other avenues have been explored. Just straight to helmets.
Admin  
#16 Posted : 14 August 2006 19:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Kate Graham Terry, that is just some people's mentality. It is sadly common and has nothing to do with health and safety.
Admin  
#17 Posted : 15 August 2006 01:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Tony Brunskill Terry, I think we have to be a little cautious here. Three minor injuries may just be the signpost Bird was talking about when he developed his triangle. My experience is in Industrial type bakeries and loading bays can often have a number of hazards that give rise to the risk of head injuries. It is common place now for warehouse staff operating alongside FLTs or high racking to wear head protection for example. Many of the risks are dynamic and therefore engineering controls are difficult to implement. It is also my experience that many "managers" in these environments have a limited knowledge of H&S and therefore it follows the controls are going to be limited by the extent of that knowledge. I believe there is a duty to consult on the findings of the risk assessment but not on the process of risk assessment (although most employers would recognise the benefits of doing so), therefore I would tread carefully with the "consultation" argument. Without all the facts and a good understanding of the processes that are undertaken in the environments where hard hats are mandatory it would be unprofessional to comment on the suitability of control measures adopted. Do bear in mind that PPE, although a last resort can often be introduced as a temporary measure until other controls can be established. Finally, what are the objections to wearing a hard hat? If these are genuine and justified then put the objection in writing to your employer, you have a legal duty to inform him/her if the objections are based on H&S concerns. The argument of "we never had to wear them before" can often be torn to shreds by a half decent manager of safety professional. There are alot of risks in bakery operations that need to be controlled, dust explosions, mixing machines, knives, thermal comfort, manual handling, burns, gas, electricity etc etc, perhaps this is the time for a concerted push being as you appear to have a manager that is taking a interest in your well being. Regards Tony
Admin  
#18 Posted : 15 August 2006 07:11:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Dave Wilson well the TGWU union movement is fighting against a safety initative - thats a first!! So when a driver suffers head injury the TGWU union solicitors are going to help with the compensation case? Its just the same on a number of sites not just construction where Hard hats Hi Viz safety boots and Safety goggles have to be worn and as CMIOSH I feel is so OTT in some areas but we do it! Wearing a hard hat on a food plant is not new and I would go along with it, sorry mate dont agree with your discussion - 2 head injuries, how many near misses?? and all of these could have been serious!
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
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.