Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Clare Brass
Hi, we are a warehouse and distribution centre and a head office all in one. All warehouse staff and drivers wear compulsory PPE (safety footwear, high vis vests, bump caps).
We also have some staff who infrequently (from 1-2 times a day to 1-2 times a week) access the warehouse to check product (Customer calls and asks if a part has a widget, sales person will go and have a quick look).
My question is: should PPE be mandatory for the infrequent warehouse visitor?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Andrew Wilson
Hi Clare,
if the warehouse has been designated mandatory PPE this should be for all persons entering the area, including visitors. It is the area which has been designated, not the people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Youel
risk assess; that will give you the answer
usually what is good for one is good for all in the same work environment
there are many cases re office staff 'nipping' into the yard and then getting hurt
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Salus
Hi Clare,if there is no danger from foot or head injury they do not need to wear boots or a hard hat.
You should have already segregated as much as possible pedestrians and vehicles.
I would hang some hi- viz vests up at the entrance to the area,write up a procedure for these types of visits (with all having an input)get it out to everyone, get everyone to sign to say they have read and understood it then monitor and pull people up who do not comply.
Don't be to hard on non conformists initially, it just takes a bit of time and practise to get into the new procedures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By CRN Baker
There is a similar situation where I work.
The premise being that the hazards are there on a 24/7 and some staff only visit the warehouse on an "as needed" basis.
The site states that all personnel & visitors must wear a hi-viz and protective footwear as a minimum in the warehouse and yard.
The reasoning being that they are less regularly exposed to the hazards and may be less "tuned in" on what might constitute a hazard when visiting these areas.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richard Altoft
if risk exists either remove it or protect against it or in last resort then use PPE and insist it is used. Will give bad impression to customers though surely if the impression is the premises you run are unsafe.
If no risk then why have a rule about PPE
R
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Solidarity, equal-risk-equal-protection. Local rules.
Umpteen reasons for why the occasional visitor should wear an equivalent level of PPE.
I really hate it when a manager or a secretary says "I'll only be a minute"
Especially as manager/secretary are not as situationally aware as the local inhabitants.
I've worked down mines where the "inhabitants" wear blue coveralls and visitors wear white. This makes them stand out and be more noticeable. I'm not a miner and need to have my hand held. Suits me.
and they do a great line in belts to hang batteries and things from.
And I love seeing a manager, in whites, get splashed in mud from head to foot by a passing dumper.
Fun fun fun
Merv
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Anthony Slinger
Can you organise the way these items are checked? Can the sales team ring/radio the warehouse team eliminating the need for them to visit? If not then i agree with other posters if the risks have been reduced SFAIRP and PPE is still required for the warehouse team and the same risks also exist for the infrequent visitors, who should use the same PPE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Put it another way!
Is this to protect them against infrequent accidents?
Your RA will tell you when these will happen????????
Of course they are required to wear it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Clare Brass
Thanks everyone for the feedback, and agreee with all thoughts - the PPE is for the risk, not the person.
Additionally, supplying PPE to some and not others creates an unhealthy hierarchy. However, for this instance we are going to try and remove the risk first, by getting sales team to call through to the warehouse to check items. This is to be trialed for 8 weeks, and if its not possible to remove the risk, then we'll supply the PPE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Red Ones
I used to work in a similar environment. Within days of starting work there, the local EHO came to investigate a recent spate of accidents. On inspecting the RA she pointed out that the hazard remains for all visitors to the area irrespective of their length of stay. The severity of the accident is irrespective of their length of stay, ot even their employment status. The liklihood of the accident is the same.
Question then remains, why is is not acceptable to put warehouse hands at risk and to issue them with PPE, but it is acceptable to put office workers at risk.
In the case above the EHO issued a rectification notice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.