Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Sie
Hi All,
Just wondering whether anyone can give me some advice on law and legal issue.
In our company, we have been requested to include any high residual risk onto the construction drawings, as a warning to the contractor. This involves specifying appropriate equipment for a particular task.
A question has been raised how can we avoid to 'upset' any manufacturer from company outside UK because of the Treaty of Rome?
Also, does Treaty of Rome overide any Health and Safety Law?
Thanks in advance.
Kind Regards
Ting
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By gham
Have you concidered your leagal position if you specify a peice of equipment that you deem suitable and ultimately a loss occurs through use of said equipment.
If you have identified the risk could you not mitigate it rather than prescibing a method to control it, leaving that decision to people who are going to carry out the task?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sie
The instruction is from the head office, we are challenging the instruction as we don't want to take further any unnecessary liability.
However, is there anyone in the construction industry included warnings of high residual risk on the construction drawings?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
Seems to me that (in the main) you are being asked to do only what the CDM Regulations require, i.e. (a)provide information on or with the design about significant residual risks that a comptent contractor would not be expected to know, and (b) where it is imperative for reasons of safety that the structure etc. is erected or built in a certain way or certain sequence, then this is specified.
HOWEVER - it is not usually necessary, and I would agree that there are potential pitfalls, to go into detail of specifying methods or particular types of equipment for those areas of the scheme design that a competent contractor should know how to build.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By mly
Thanks for the comments, I will forward this discussion as a reference. Any further comments are welcome.
Personally, I agree with the above responses, in which, by including specific product onto the drawings, it will induced further liability to the designer and as a designer, we may have limited knowledge on which equipment is appropriate for the job nor we have any control over other issues, e.g. competent of the operator to the use the equipment that we specified.
However, I think it's a good idea to include high residual risks onto the drawings to warn the contractor, but stating contractor(s) need to take necessary steps to control the high residual risk, or contractor should discuss with designer on how to mitigate the risk.
Mainly, I would be interested to know what does others construction / consultant company will do regarding this matter, or just simply omit including any high residual risk onto the construction drawings (but mention in the specification).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Dickson
Sie,
The essential part of this is that you should identify construction hazards that a competent contractor would not be expected to know. A competent contractor should be able to identify most run of the mill construction hazards, so notes on the contraction drawings end up being minimal. Don’t forget to include information for anyone doing subsequent work, including demolition.
The Treat of Rome (actually there are two, so I’m assuming you are referring to the one that effectively established what is now the EU) does not have any bearing on the matter. The H&S part is in article 118 of the treaty. It just states that member states will endeavour to improve and harmonise working conditions and minimum standards. Google for it if you need to read more.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sie
Ken,
Thanks for your response. This is a statement that we sent to the head office.
"in accordance with the Treaty of Rome, 1957, we may not quote the names of manufacturers or suppliers of materials in that this would be seen as a barrier to trade. . We are barred under these provisions from even hiding behind the old favourite of "Or similar other approved"
We are trying to convince the head office that we shouldn't include any specific product on the drawings using the treaty.
Do we have legs to stand on by using the treaty?
Thanks
Ting
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.